VIRTUEONLINE Digest - 28 Dec 2005 to 4 Jan 2006 (#2006-1) Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:00 PM There are 18 messages totalling 3315 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. VirtueOnline Viewpoints - January 4, 2006 2. VirtueOnline: 2005 - The Year in Review 3. PENNSYLVANIA: St James the Less loses on appeal to PA Supreme Court 4. MARYLAND: Episcopal Bishops allegedly ousted New Anglican Congregation from Presbyterian Church 5. MIDDLE EAST: Diocesan Convention Explodes over Possible ties with pro-gay ECUSA Dioceses 6. The Tide Is Rising In The Diocese Of Florida 7. VIRGINIA: South Riding priest removed by Bishop Lee 8. WASHINGTON, D.C.: Priest "regrets" excommunication of parishioner,Diocese Drops Charges 9. OHIO: Rebels on principle 10. NIGERIA: Anglican Church disowns Nigerian gay activist 11. ENGLAND: Commissary plan to appease the opponents of women bishops 12. As Eye See It: Thoughts on the Windsor Report: What Went Wrong? - by Paul F. M. Zahl 13. As Eye See It: Global South Primates should present Williams with fait accompli for Lambeth 14. As Eye See It: The Abuse of Tolerance - by Brett Cane 15. As Eye See It: Rome and the TAC - by John Hepworth 16. Chaplain Fights Politically Correct Pentagon - by Mike McManus 17. Is Terrorism "religion" news? - by Terry Mattingly 18. Anglo-Catholic Reader Responds to Article: Catholic, Protestant Divide ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:42:48 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: VirtueOnline Viewpoints - January 4, 2006 VirtueOnline Viewpoints January 4, 2006 http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3460 "Today there are two Gospels in competition for the allegiance of members of the Episcopal Church. One is the Gospel that has been received from Jesus through the apostles, through the tradition of the church and Scripture, and which persists and is still intellectually respectable [despite the counter charges of the skeptics who are putting forth a different Gospel] and which is understood to be the actual revelation of God to humankind and is understood to be true. The other "Gospel" is one that has been made to eliminate everything that was thought needing to be eliminated from the authentic, original Christian Gospel in light of the supposed enlightenment and insights of intellectuals and the supposed requirements of our living in a modern, scientific world." The Rev. Bruce A. Flickinger, BA, M Div. presbyter, The Episcopal Church USA Dear Brothers and Sisters, WELCOME to the first digest of 2006. For most of us, we are glad to see the back of 2005. It was, by any definition, a rough year for thousands of orthodox Episcopalians. Many of you left for greener ecclesiastical and theological pastures and shared the relief you felt with me. I, in turn, tried to keep you informed about both those who both left and those who stayed to fight another day. It was another sad year for yhe Episcopal Church as it lost more of its members, dipping below 800,000 practicing Episcopalians for the first time in its history. All the indicators are that this will continue into 2006, with perhaps thousands more leaving after the 75th General Convention in Columbus, Ohio. With members go money, and with the loss of income go the closure of parishes around the country. It won?t simply be the inhibition and deposition of godly priests by revisionist bishops, but the slow deterioration of parishes as they sink below 40 members, facing the reality that the average-age Episcopalian is now in the mid 60's and the average size parish is 74. The Episcopal Church is not helping itself. Its promotion of theological ambiguity and moral relativism and its fatuous belief that by ordaining a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy would result in thousands joining the church was and remains a profound fiction. Furthermore, the Episcopal Church is being assailed on all sides: by orthodox Global South primates beating it over the head for its positions and refusal to act on the Windsor Report, by bishops and archbishops picking off plum ECUSA parishes, the steady advance of the Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches in America (CANA), the increasingly-high profile Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), the strengthening Anglo-Catholic movement, all now pose a serious threat to the liberal-run hegemony of the Episcopal Church. I wrote a few months ago that the Episcopal Church is surrounded by a cloud of witnesses screaming that the emperors (bishops) have no clothes, and what little they have is covering unrepentant sin. A church that follows the zeitgeist and does not stand against it is doomed to oblivion. Tolerating sin in the name of inclusion will inevitably bring down upon it the judgment of God. I have examined at length all this in the Year in Review -- 2005, which is included in this digest. THE BEAT GOES ON. In the DIOCESE OF FLORIDA it was the beginning of the Great Exodus for a number of parishes and for thousands of parishioners. January 1 was the deadline for the exit of orthodox parishes in that diocese. One can only imagine what Bishop Samuel Johnson Howard must be thinking. Was Robinson's consecration really worth all this? "We have all declared ourselves Anglican Churches as of Sunday, January 1, 2006 and are operating under new 501c3s but have not 'exited,' because we believe it is more accurate and helpful to say we are realigning," wrote a cardinal rector from that diocese. "St. Michael's in Gainesville is starting as Servants of Christ this coming Sunday, worshipping at a Vineyard congregation there. Calvary already left. St. Luke's Community of Life is now a mission partner congregation with St. Peter's in Tallahassee, under Uganda. Grace, Redeemer, and All Souls are still in negotiations with the diocese concerning oversight, clergy status and property," the cardinal rector wrote to VirtueOnline. A second wave is mounting rapidly behind it and may well be larger and cause a greater loss to the diocese than the first. There appear to be at least eight and possibly as many as 14 other churches preparing themselves for a similar move to separate at some point between January 1 and soon after General Convention in June. Many of the second-wave clergy and vestries have communicated with Bishop John Howard to express their spiritual solidarity with the rirst-wave churches and to urge him to be graceful in his handling of the issues surrounding the realignment, especially with property. The rector of one of these churches, The Rev. Mark R. Eldredge of Epiphany, Jacksonville, shared his vestry's letter to Bishop Howard. which said; "Along with many other congregations, we too are struggling with the issue of remaining loyal to the Episcopal Church unless there is the significant repentance as called for by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. We request therefore that those congregations in the Diocese of Florida who have already, for reasons of conscience, decided to align themselves with other Anglican jurisdictions be allowed to retain their properties. Please consider that the treatment of these congregations will affect our long-term relationship." A third wave of departures will include a silent majority of individuals and families from churches throughout the diocese that choose not to remain in the Diocese of Florida and the Episcopal Church. Even if Bishop Howard inhibits and deposes all the clergy and takes over their buildings the victory is pyrrhic. He can never reverse this amount of mass hemorrhaging going on; the body can't take it. The bottom line on all this is that the open proclamation of sin cannot and will not be tolerated, and it will bring no blessing to the Episcopal Church. A church that has no fix on sin has no fix on salvation; it has lost its way. God cannot and will not include and bless what openly violates his irreversible Moral Law. In the DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA, the Anglo-Catholic parish of St. James the Less lost on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, forcing out Fr. David Ousley, who had been there for 22 years and nearly all his parish with him. Earlier, he had closed down a school because of Bishop Bennison's rampage against him for daring to uphold what Bennison neither affirms nor believe. You can read that full story in today's digest. In the DIOCESE OF MARYLAND, the revisionist bishops of that diocese, Robert Ihloff and John Rabb, allegedly ousted a new orthodox Anglican congregation which had, in December, given birth at a Presbyterian Church -- no room in the inn for this group. It looks like a case of raw naked power being played out against one small growing orthodox Anglican parish that dares to stand against the monolithic revisionist ECUSA. And from the DIOCESE OF NEBRASKA comes this warning from an orthodox priest. "Dear Mr. Virtue, "I am taking the liberty of sending you (attached) a Via Media information sheet about the session to be held in this diocese on January 20th. The information sheet they put out states: 'Via Media is the new evangelism tool for the Episcopal Church. . .' From what I understand this is just garbage. They are as revisionist as the revisionists and are only trying to find a new way of presenting their stuff. The person who is putting this on for via media is a woman cleric of the diocese. Naturally, they all want the whole ball game to go on here. Aside from the two orthodox parishes, St. Barnabas and St. Martin in Omaha, everyone else is of the idea that all is well. It's not." "Sincerely, Fr. Fred Raybourn +SSC" And in the DIOCESE OF JERUSALEM, a verbal fight broke out on the convention floor over the bishop's desire to twin with the pro-gay DIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES. You can read that story today as well. What VirtueOnline has learned is that the word has been put out that for the Episcopal Church to stay in the Anglican Club it must get individual liberal and revisionist dioceses to twine with African, Asian, and Middle East dioceses by pouring money into them, educating their clergy in the US at revisionist seminaries, in short, seduce them with money and power and, in so doing, offer them ECUSA's version of pansexual acceptance. It's subtle, devilish and will, in a number of cases probably work, though Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola has made it clear he doesn't want ECUSA money and he won't be sending his ordinands to American ECUSA seminaries. But will other African and Middle East bishops follow his lead? Time will tell. In other news from the PROVINCE OF NIGERIA, Archbishop Akinola issued a warning about the activities of some fraudulent personalities who exploit Christian love and the good name of the church in a bid to defraud unsuspecting people, especially foreigners, of money. "The trend has become alarming recently as we receive dozens of mails seeking to verify supposed priests administering bequests of non-existing estates, missionaries selling pets that never get delivered or collecting aids for the sick or orphaned with seemingly convincing pictures. We have even seen a situation where a supposed knight collects money to organise homosexual meetings that only take place on sponsored news reports," he wrote. "The Church of Nigeria strongly dissociates herself from all these activities and states categorically that no respectable minister of the Gospel in our Church nor indeed any true member sends unsolicited mails to people they have never met offering or requesting money." AVOID them and IGNORE their mails, he writes. PRIMATE AKINOLA also issued a disclaimer against the activities of a person who goes by the name of Davis (David) Mac Iyalla. "He claims to be a homosexual member of the Anglican Church but extensive searches revealed that he is NOT registered in any of our over 10,000 local parishes as of the past two years. None of our over 6,000 priests recognise him as an active member in any of their parishes. The Church of Nigeria wishes to emphasise that she continues to minister to all her members regardless of the problems they face. Our priests are adequately trained to counsel and pray with all manner of persons who go to them for help." And from the DIOCESE OF NEW WESTMINSTER comes this view from the pew. A senior warden at one of the wealthier parishes in the diocese was voicing his anger over the fact that [Bishop] Michael Ingham is using the wealthier parishes as cash cows to cover the financial losses caused by the loss of revenue from the orthodox parishes in the diocese (this man's parish is being assessed an additional $16,000 per year). As I left him this morning he stated in a loud voice that "We don't need a Michael Ingham: We need a Martin Luther. He knew the score." On another note the VANCOUVER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY (VST), a liberal institution with Anglican students is uglying up the west end of the UBC campus with a mega-money-grabbing housing project. In spite of its many attempts to develop one wing-nut theological program after another, VST continues to lose ground. It recently cut its faculty by 25 to30 percent. And in another move in Canada, the government ruled on the use of the name "Anglican" and ordered a group of dissident churches to stop using the name "Anglican Communion in Canada." Aissa Aomari, deputy director of Corporations Canada, wrote to the group's lawyer that "corporation #409786-6 was granted a name which does not represent the Anglican Communion in Canada nor does it have any recognized ties with the international fellowship of ,churches known worldwide as the Anglican Communion." A spokesman for the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC), the Rev. Paul Carter, who lives in Vancouver, said Corporations Canada subsequently granted the group an extension but declined to say when it expires. "It is in the hands of a legal team working on our behalf," he said in an interview. "The next step is for us to find an agreeable name that Industry Canada (which oversees Corporations Canada) will accept. It is unfortunate that the Anglican Church of Canada is challenging us." The group, which includes seven churches in British Columbia and three in Saskatchewan, was incorporated in July 2002, one month after the Vancouver-based diocese of New Westminster voted to approve offering blessing ceremonies to gay couples. Mr. Carter said all the ACiC congregations have left the Anglican Church of Canada and are under the authority of Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, one of five foreign archbishops who oversee the group. The moral of this story is first change the church's teaching on morality, then when priests and parishes flee for the sake of their souls, inhibit and depose them and take their parishes from them. And then when you have got them where you want them, stamp on their heads and wipe them out. NORTHERN INDIA has a new primate. At the 12th triennial synod of the Church of North India (CNI), the Most Rev. Joel V. Mal, bishop of Chandigarh, was elected to a three-year term and installed as the 10th moderator of the CNI. He succeeds the Most Rev. Z. James Terom. THE POPE received the first English Catholic ambassador since the Reformation recently. Pope Benedict XVI stressed religious tolerance, diversity, and respect for the human person as he received the Letters of Credence Dec. 23 from the new ambassador of the United Kingdom to the Holy See, Francis Martin-Xavier Campbell. He is the first English Catholic ambassador to the Holy See since the Reformation. Charles W. Socarides, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, has died at the age of 83. Dr. Socarides maintained publicly, long after it was considered scientifically acceptable to do so, that homosexuality was a condition amenable to treatment and even to conversion to heterosexuality. Dr. Socarides (pronounced sock-uh-REE-dees) was a clinical professor of psychiatry for many years at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, where he retired in 1996. A frequent guest on television talk shows and news programs, Dr. Socarides wrote a half-dozen books about homosexuality. They included "The Overt Homosexual" (Grune & Stratton, 1968) and "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far -- A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society" (Adam Margrave Books, 1995). In 1992, Dr. Socarides helped found the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. The primary mission of the organization, of which he was a past president, is "to make effective psychological therapy available to all homosexual men and women who seek change," according to its Web site. In his writings, public appearances and private practice, Dr. Socarides argued that homosexuality was a "neurotic adaptation" that in men stemmed from absent fathers and overly doting mothers. In "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far," he estimated that he had helped 35 percent of his gay patients to "become heterosexual" and a slightly smaller percentage to control their gay impulses. Ironically, Leanne Payne was saying this about 20 years ago, but few listened. Someone should communicate this knowledge to Frank Griswold, who believes that change is not only not possible but not desirable. Dr. Socarides maintained his position long after the American Psychiatric Association rescinded its definition of homosexuality as a form of mental illness in 1973, a watershed moment for the profession. He maintained his position, too, despite the fact that one of his children is openly gay and was a nationally prominent gay-rights advocate. And from the DIOCESE OF MALAWI comes word that a delegation of 21 clergy who rejected The Rt. Rev. Leonard Mwenda as the next bishop of Lake Malawi following the defeat of English cleric Nicky Henderson met with Archbishop Bernard Malango in Lilongwe, where they persuaded him to overturn the decision of the court of confirmation. A source told VirtueOnline that another election should take place. But according to the Canons and Constitution of Central Africa, the Elective Assembly ceases to function after an election of a bishop, and new members have to be elected. A note of the synod meeting has to be given a month before the meeting, and this will not be complied with. "In this case they have decided first to hold a SYNOD where they will elect members of the elective assembly and thereafter hold another election," the source said. "The archbishop has not yet communicated to his fellow bishops, and we intend to write to him objecting to what he has done. Bishop Mwenda has already been told not to come to start work, but no reasons were given. This is very surprising, bearing in mind that he was part of the bishops who came up with that decision that he (Mwenda) should come and start work in January, and the appointed bishop had already been given a letter of appointment." For yet another brilliant take on the WINDSOR REPORT read Dr. Paul Zahl's reflection and analysis in today's digest. It is worth its weight in gold. THE NEW YEAR WOULD NOT BE RUNG IN if we failed to mention that the distinguished Bible teacher, expositor and leading British evangelical Anglican the Rev. John Stott received a CBE in the Queen's New Year Honours List, "for services to Christian scholarship and the Christian world". Our heartiest congratulations go to this evangelical statesman and humble servant of God. MANY of you are still sending in last-minute 2005 tax-deductible checks to support this ministry. THANK YOU. I am deeply appreciative of your support. You are making it possible for me to write, travel, support an expanding Web site that needs daily attention, employ a small part-time staff and so much more. I am deeply, deeply grateful. You are all very kind in helping me get the news out daily to the Web site and weekly in a digest. You can send donations to: VIRTUEONLINE 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380 OR you can make a donation at the Web site using PAYPAL. www.virtueonline.org All Blessings, David W. Virtue, D.D. LATE BREAKING NEWS...URGENT PRAYER REQUEST. VirtueOnline has just received word that Bolivian Bishop Frank Lyons is seriously ill in hospital. He has been suffering with a blocked kidney duct since last week. He has undergone several procedures and many tests, but so far all attempts to remove the blockage (two stones) have been unsuccessful. This is NOT a case of pain with a bladder stone; this is a life-threatening problem. He has been hospitalized for several days now and things have only gotten worse. The doctors had resigned themselves to remove the kidney stones by abdominal surgery because they had shut down his one kidney and caused a blood-pressure spike, but now his blood pressure has gone so high that it is too dangerous to do the surgery. It seems that right now only God can make things better. Prayer, and lots of it, is desperately needed. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:45:07 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: VirtueOnline: 2005 - The Year in Review VirtueOnline: 2005 - THE YEAR IN REVIEW http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3458 Commentary By David W. Virtue www.virtueonline.org 1/4/2006 It was not a good year for the Episcopal Church. Fragmentation, begun in earnest with the consecration of an avowed homosexual to the episcopacy in the person of V. Gene Robinson, overheated, with more and more orthodox parishes running helter skelter in all directions, fleeing from an apostate and heretical denomination. Repeatedly throughout the year the North American Church, along with its neighbor to the north the Anglican Church in Canada, found itself buffeted and blasted by angry Global South Primates who saw nothing but intransigence and failure by the two provinces to repent of their actions, in the case of the ECUSA for consecrating an avowed homosexual to the episcopacy, and both for advocating the blessing of same-sex relationships. In the Episcopal Church, in more than a dozen dioceses, large orthodox parishes snubbed their noses at revisionist bishops, lawyered up, and proceeded to walk away - some with their properties, some without -- but determined once and for all that they would walk apart from a church that had lost its spiritual way. The buzzword for orthodox parishes was transformation, for liberals and revisionists it was inclusion, though in the end inclusion did not, nor could it, include those of orthodox persuasion who still believed in the Good News of a life-changing gospel. Diversity, another liberal buzzword, might include the Via Media, "Integrity", the United Religions Initiative and a host of world religions, but it deliberately excluded those with a distinctive Christian Faith and by definition those who had an exclusive understanding of the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints'. And so Forward in Faith, the AAC and ACN found themselves marginalized and ridiculed for daring to say that the emperor, Frank Griswold, and the vast majority of his House of Bishops really had no theological clothes. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3367 The Episcopal Church's story unfolded like a horror movie with the bad guys knocking off the good guys, occasionally offering a carrot and stick approach with DEPO, only to find that DEPO kept the stick in the hands of revisionist bishops, while AEO was the carrot that was really being asked for, but never obtained. Like a three-card monte hustler on New York City's streets, the cards were repeatedly dealt to orthodox parishes by revisionist bishops only to find that, when the cards were turned up, the hustler, (read bishop), held the cards of inhibition, deposition and parish takeover. It was a bad year for ECUSA's remnant orthodox. And it will only get worse in 2006. Thousands of Episcopalians chose to voluntarily walk apart from the ECUSA in 2005, leaving hundreds of parishes at the rate, some estimated, of 100 a day. And they joined themselves to jurisdictions that included Bolivia, Central Africa, Chile, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southeast Asia, Uganda, as well as the Anglican Mission in America, the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Traditional Anglican Communion, the Anglican Province of America and many more. To an outsider it must have looked ecclesiastically chaotic to say the least, but from within, it all made sense in a strange sort of way. Only an Anglican viewing all the parts can understand why, for example, Archbishop Peter Akinola felt it was necessary to form an alternative Anglican Church in North America for Nigerians (and anyone else who wanted to join) called CANA, without consulting Frank Griswold. ECUSA's Presiding Bishop! Or why CAPAC - the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and Caribbean which, modeling itself on CAPA, was necessary to form to provide ecclesiastical cover for those on the left flank of The Episcopal Church. Nassau Archbishop Drexel Gomez along with Southern Cone Archbishop Greg Venables orchestrated this new regional Body, and together they now form an orthodox pincer movement around The Episcopal Church. Among the big ongoing separations were the three parishes in the Diocese of Los Angeles who, in 2004, had won legal claim to their property, but in 2005 found themselves fighting in the secular courts to keep those decisions in their favor. All Saints Church in Long Beach, St. David's Church in North Hollywood and St. James Church in Newport Beach all won in the courts, but they will face more legal challenges of the same in 2006, with the help, no doubt, of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the 'sacred' Trust Funds of the National Church in New York City. The judge, in a stinging rebuttal to diocesan claims to the parishes ruled said that St. James' was the rightful owner of its buildings and said the diocese had to cough up their legal costs. Perhaps the biggest single separation was the four-figure attendance congregation of Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas - the largest parish in the Diocese of Kansas. Bishop Dean Wolfe bit into the congregations' check book allowing them to keep their parish in exchange for $100,000 a year for ten years. It was blood money, but amicable enough bearing in mind how other orthodox parishes fared with revisionist bishops. Things got downright vicious in the Diocese of Connecticut, and on Tuesday, September 27, a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, naming Connecticut Bishop Andrew Smith, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and nine other individuals and/or entities as defendants in a case involving five orthodox Connecticut priests and six parishes of the Diocese of Connecticut. The civil suit followed months of theological dispute and hostile actions by Bishop Smith, who stands in "opposition to traditional Christianity and Anglican teaching," according to the rectors of these churches. 2006 should see a resolution to both ecclesiastical and civil lawsuits in this matter. It was the single biggest lawsuit filed by a group of clergy against two bishops in modern ECUSA history. Before then Smith sent in a Diocesan SWAT team to St. John's Church, Bristol where Fr. Mark Hansen found his church confiscated, locks on the church doors changed, he himself fired, and his computer broken into. The final insult was the installation of a woman priest-in-charge with little or no parish experience and without vestry consent. Seventeen diocesan bishops issued a letter asking Bishop Smith to reconsider the inhibition. He didn't, of course. And six retired bishops issued a statement castigating the Bishop for his actions. Fr. Hansen later sent a letter to the bishop announcing he was resigning. Other cardinal parishes that left in 2005 were the majority of St. Nicholas', Midland, in the Diocese of Northwest Texas under Bishop C. Wallis Ohl (causing a major financial crisis in the diocese); four congregations in the Diocese of Ohio told Bishop Hollingsworth that enough was enough and were out the door; and at least two parishes; St. John's in Tallahassee, and Calvary in Jacksonville, said that ECUSA was beyond spiritual repair and were gone. At least another eight parishes in the Diocese of Florida politely told high flying, high living, Bishop Samuel Johnson Howard that they will be out the door in 2006. The bishop rejected a request for alternative episcopal oversight from seven of his clergy, offering DEPO to another four rectors. The other six petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference looking for a resolution to their situation. But nothing happened, and probably never will. The Diocese of Florida could lose as much as 40 percent of its parishioners by the end of 2006. Holy Cross Anglican (formerly Episcopal) in Raleigh, in the Diocese of N.C. changed its name and got a new start. The parish came under the Province of Uganda; and a new church plant in the Diocese of Virginia, South Riding Church, got off the ground even though Bishop Peter Lee was none too pleased and felt the need to inhibit and depose the priest. Word has it that Bishop Lee has more shocks coming this year. In the Diocese of Eastern Michigan, Fr. Gene Geromel, SSC, whose parish, St. Bartholomew's, had long since left the ECUSA, was deposed by Bishop Edwin Leidel in a mockery of a service to end his ecclesiastical career. At diocesan headquarters they lit a candle for his requiem and a solemn statement of deposition was read to him. He had been a godly priest for 31 years, no matter, he had to go, and out the door he went. Bishops of seven dioceses promptly granted Fr. Geromel a license to function in their dioceses, and seven suffragan and retired bishops joined in endorsing the letter. Five other parish priests who walked out on Bishop Leidel in 2004 and got inhibited announced they were flourishing in 2005 just nicely, thank you very much. They walked away leaving properties, assets and a handful of parishioners but in the end they succeeded, leaving behind what they viewed as spiritual death to their souls. As the year ended, the Anglo-Catholic parish of St. James the Less in Philadelphia lost its appeal in a property case opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week. The PA. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the diocese and four vestrymen could also face lawsuits from the bishop, even after being thrown out of their parish. It was a bitter blow for Fr. David Ousley who has been the parish rector for 22 years. He has found another place for him and his congregation to hang their hats, so the parish buildings will lie fallow, with a school closed. Bishop Charles Bennison has about as much chance of reviving this parish (despite the ringers who will fill the church for the first Sunday or two) as V. Gene Robinson has of going straight. All these departing parishes and many more are now singing a chorus of 'Bye, bye Miss ECUSA pie, took my parish from ECUSA coz ECUSA was dry, an them good ol' bishops were drinkin whiskey and rye singing this will be the year that I die...' What now is happening is a waiting game for thousands of orthodox Episcopalians. They are waiting to see how the 75th General Convention will play out in response to the Windsor Report when they gather in Columbus, Ohio in 2006. If there is no full repentance and recognition of the havoc they have wrought on the Anglican Communion there will be a general exodus the like of which has not been seen since the 1979 St. Louis Convention and the formation of the AMiA five years ago. The prevailing issue is the consecration of V. Gene Robinson who got consents after the 2003 Convention in Minneapolis. As things transpired several bishops got the heave-ho in 2005. In the Diocese of Southern Virginia Bishop David C. Bane was politely shown the door, but not before the diocese unloaded its suffragan, a woman by the name of Joy Gallagher, who got a payout to get lost and found her way to a hell hole called the Diocese of Newark. Another two bishops may well get their marching orders early in 2006. VirtueOnline will keep you posted. THE PREVAILING ISSUE AND DOCUMENT that took center stage in 2005 was the Windsor Report around which almost every diocesan convention gave its opinion as to whether it would follow its request for ECUSA to repent and pass that along to General Convention. There was so much prevarication and spin at every diocesan convention one doubts that the Global South Primates monitoring all this cannot possibly know how it will all end - liberal ECUSA dioceses are on treadmills going nowhere; they are losing money and members they can never recover. Only a handful of dioceses, including Pittsburgh, came out full endorsing the findings of the Windsor Report, but even it found dissent in its ranks. Thirty six of the 38 primates of the Anglican Communion met in Northern Ireland in late February which saw upheaval and anarchy flowing from its ranks. The result was a communique in which the North American provinces of ECUSA and the ACC were told to step back and not to send representatives to meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council. The Primates revealed just how broken and fragmented they were when Griswold left early and the orthodox Primates partied with leaders from the Anglican Communion Network. The Episcopal Church having been told at Dromantine to "walk apart" got their official marching orders in Nottingham, England when the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) met in June. Both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada were asked to explain themselves and make presentations which they did. The ECUSA tossed in a little blue book called To Set Our Hope on Christ, euphemistically titled "A response to the Invitation of the Windsor Report that documents the 40 year history of the Episcopal Church sexuality debate." The booklet tried to spin their actions, but it was seriously theologically flawed. A number of orthodox theologians made mincemeat of it. The ACC which includes members from all the Anglican provinces, voted 30-28 with four abstaining to suspend the North Americans from all "official entities" of the ACC till Lambeth 2008, but the ECUSA refused to take that lying down and the Presiding Bishop went on a pubic relations tour calling for more "listening", a process that wound up with the announcement that the ACC would now have a full time Director of Listening, a triumph of Orwellianism funded in part by the Episcopal Church. The House of Bishops which met three times during 2005 found itself dispirited with one moderate bishop telling VirtueOnline that bishops were becoming "physically ill" at Griswold's leadership. At a special meeting of the HOB in January in Salt Lake City the Windsor Report was discussed and "A Word to the Church from the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church." The bishops threw a Hail Mary and said the Windsor Report called for further study and discernment on sexuality matters. At the March meeting at Camp Allen in the Diocese of Texas, the bishops produced a "Covenant Statement" which called for a time for healing and the continuing "education process" called for by the Windsor Report. The bishops then announced that they would withhold consents to the consecration of any person (straight or gay) elected to the episcopate until the General Convention of 2006. A third meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico a Property Task Force, with legal overtones was set up by 28 bishops in an ominous admission that the Episcopal Church might come apart at the seams with millions of dollars being spent on lawsuits over divided and fleeing parishes who believe that the Episcopal Church has abandoned the historic Christian Faith. The House of Bishops created a 10-member task force of attorneys and other experts to help defend the Episcopal Church and its dioceses against attempts by congregations or other dioceses to secede from the Episcopal Church with their property. The Windsor Report got ripped apart by a number of orthodox theologians including Dr. Ephraim Radner, Dr. Robert Sanders and Dr. Stephen Noll. TESM president Dr. Paul Zahl summed it up for many when he wrote: "The Report of the Lambeth Commission is flawed fundamentally because it refuses to take up the substantial issue that caused its coming into existence: the issue of homosexuality. "Process" statements will not suffice at this juncture in Anglican church history. Theological "conservatives" can take heart from most of the findings of the Report, although it is deficient in equating the New Hampshire consecration with the crossing of diocesan boundaries on the part of "orthodox" bishops and primates. He then said that the Report was ambiguous in its use of the Bible in relation to an issue on which the Bible is unambiguous; and in its ultimate result, which papers over the cracks." Nineteen ECUSA bishops representing all theological streams within the church met at the behest of Los Angeles bishop J. Jon Bruno in a confidential meeting in Los Angeles in July to try and figure what to do with a rapidly disintegrating church. It was allegedly secret but then V. Gene Robinson, the bon vivant of sodomite behavior, blew the whistle on the event announcing that he and Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan had had a major face off and the issues discussed boiled down to property ownership after the big split. Fifteen of them met later in Chicago for a second run at it and again confidentiality was broken to reveal that they could come to no common agreement except to apologize for the way many of the revisionist bishops had treated the traditionalist organization Forward in Faith. The Executive Council of the national Episcopal Church held four meetings where the Windsor Report was discussed. First in Austin, Texas; then at a special meeting in Mundelein, Illinois where it was decided to send observers to the ACC meeting in England. Later in Louisville, Ky., the council approved a half a percent reduction in the dividend payout rate for the 2006-2009 budget. The pro-Palestinian HOB discussed divestment of companies doing business with Israel, but trod lightly fearing the wrath of two of its bishops who had Jewish parentage. Later Bishop Mark Sisk of NY decided he didn't want to divest as it was bad PR for a diocese surrounded by a large Jewish population. Oy vey! Later in Las Vegas the council got bad news on church attendance, hearing that average Sunday attendance (ASA) had declined by 3.3 percent in 2004. You had better odds on of winning at the crap tables than hoping ECUSA would win more converts. BUT THERE WAS GOOD NEWS. In Pittsburgh in November, over 3,000 Episcopalians and Anglicans from around the world including some from the Sudan that included 20 bishops and seven Anglican primates, attended a conference sponsored by the Anglican Communion Network called "Hope and a Future". The conference included such speakers as Rick Warren, renowned author, world authority on church growth and Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, the undisputed titan of orthodox Anglicanism. There were a number of ordinations by Bolivian Bishop Frank Lyons (who now has more parishes he is responsible for outside Bolivia than inside it). The overall sense was that orthodox Episcopalians had everything to live for and that truth and time were on their side. Forward in Faith held their conference following it with the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman (Quincy) saying that with the passage of time some of the players had changed but the commitment to orthodoxy remains. Indeed. Hurricane Katrina which devastated three dioceses along the Gulf Coast brought out the best in Episcopalians who were actively involved in providing relief to numerous churches. Both Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD) and Anglican Relief and Development (ARDF) along with many dioceses, parishes and individuals responded to the needs of churches and parishioners of Louisiana, Mississippi, and southern Alabama. VirtueOnline traced the tragedy through the eyes of one rector the Rev. Jerry Kramer in New Orleans, but at the end of the day nearly half of the Diocese of Louisiana's 50 parishes were destroyed or damaged by the hurricane. It will take years for the churches to recover. Millions of dollars were poured into the area to repair churches and provide housing, but millions more will be needed to restore the churches and bring back the faithful. A moratorium on bishops being consecrated because of the absurd notion that if the church can't consecrate sodomists it should not be allowed to consecrate straight white (or black) males, still found four bishops donning miters before the HOB moratorium went into effect. They included the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey N. Steenson, Bishop of the Rio Grande; (orthodox); the Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego; (liberal who will see at least nine orthodox parishes delivering him ultimatums of departure ere long); the Rt. Rev. E. Ambrose Gumbs, Bishop of the Virgin Islands; (Evangelical) and the Rt. Rev. Bavi Edna Rivera, Bishop Suffragan of Olympia, a fatuous woman who said, "I won't marry anyone straight or gay," until the church officially authorizes the marriage of queers. Being Hispanic gives you even more leverage for getting away with stupid statements. At the consecration of Bishop Steenson, PB Frank Griswold got an earful from an orthodox priest telling the fey PB that he was little more than a theological charley horse. The House of Bishops saw several of their number die this past year. They included Bishops Scott Field Bailey, Robert J. Hargrove, James R. Moodey, Steven Tsosie Plummer, (a bishop who had sexual relations with his nephew) William C.R. Sheridan, William E. Sterling, and Richard M. Trelease (a serial adulterer). IN OTHER NEWS, Anglican Roman Catholic talks on Mary got a wide airing. The (ARCIC) Commission on Mary was talked about but it didn't affect most Episcopalians as they watched their churches decline in numbers. The bodily Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception, part of Rome's pantheon of dogmas, seem doomed for most Anglicans. A Joint Nominating Committee was set up to elect the next Presiding Bishop once Frank Griswold's nine-year term expires in 2006. A moderate bishop told VirtueOnline that Griswold is engineering this whole procedure and would like to see his close personal friend Tom Shaw, Bishop of Massachusetts get the nod. But he doesn't have a wife, oh dear. Fr. David L. Moyer, rector of Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, Pa., was consecrated bishop in the Traditional Anglican Communion by a bevy of bishops from the Anglican Church in Australia and TAC Archbishop John Hepworth himself. Fr. David Chislett from Australia also got a miter on the same occasion. And the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey crossed the pond and joined the staff at All Saints' Church, Chevy Chase, Md., in November for a year while researching a book in Washington DC. ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE, Nigerian Primate Peter took center stage among the orthodox Primates and castigated the Church of England over Civil Partnerships, suggesting that the C of E itself should exit the communion if it could not uphold its theological end on the sacredness of marriage between men and women. He then changed his own province's constitution to reflect this new relationship. The Church of England itself continued in free fall over Civil Partnerships, the possibility of women bishops, and hundreds of traditionalist clergy threatening to go to Rome if they ever became leaders in the church. Dr. Rowan Williams found himself pushed to the wall over the Diocese of Recife getting bumped by its Primate, but he deferred it to the Panel of Reference which had produced nothing by the year's end. A group of Anglicans meeting in Egypt issued a letter critical of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it got a number of Primates up in arms. Archbishop Akinola, the prime mover, defended his action but it left a bad taste in a lot of mouths in what was described as a 'hectoring' letter put out by the Nigerian Primate. The Archbishop of Canterbury's design team concluded that Cape Town, South Africa was not the place to hold the next Lambeth Conference so it was back to Canterbury we go. According to one report about $3 million is needed to pay everyone's way with suffragan bishops now apparently included. As realignment slowly takes place many believe it is time for North American Anglicans to ask where they want to be after the religious map is redrawn following the next General Convention in Ohio in 2006. For Episcopalians there can be little doubt that most will remain Anglicans, though some will go to Orthodoxy, other Continuing bodies and Rome. Even Anglo-Catholics who believe home is Rome want to maintain an Anglican identity. Evangelicals are coalescing under different banners. Time will tell. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:45:54 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: PENNSYLVANIA: St James the Less loses on appeal to PA Supreme Court PENNSYLVANIA: St James the Less loses on appeal to PA Supreme Court http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3447 By David W. Virtue www.virtueonline.org PHILADELPHIA, PA (1/1/2006)--The Anglo-Catholic parish of St. James the Less, located in north Philadelphia, lost its appeal in a property case opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week. The Orphans Court and the Commonwealth Court had ruled for the Diocese of Pennsylvania, concluding that the property of St. James the Less was owned by the diocese. The Pa Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Commonwealth Court that the Diocese owned the property. The Pa Supreme Court said that St. James owned the property but held it in trust for the Diocese. Earlier, the Commonwealth Court found that four vestry persons, Karl H. Spaeth, Gary E. Sugden, Becky S. Wilhoite and Robert Snead were liable to the diocese. Fr. David Ousley, parish rector is a not a party to the suit. Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison could seek damages from the four vestry persons. One has already departed the parish. Despite efforts by the parish to merge into a new nonprofit corporation named the CSJL Foundation into which St. James could merge with no ties to the Diocese or the National Episcopal Church, the court did not buy it. The court ruled that this was unauthorized by the laws of Pennsylvania. The Diocese had sued in the Orphans Court to have the merger declared invalid and to have the Diocese declared the owner of the property. "Clearly we are very disappointed at the decision; there is real sorrow in having to leave the church after being here for 22 years," Fr Ousley told VirtueOnline. Asked if he thought the congregation would go with him, Fr. Ousley said he expected the vast majority to do so and the building would probably close down. "Bennison says he will have a vibrant congregation, but his track record of inner city church closures shows otherwise." Fr. Ousley says a cemetery chapel has been made available to him and his congregation a few miles away where they will meet. He has no new name for the congregation and they have not come under any other ecclesiastical authority. "We are independent for the moment," he said. The Pa Supreme Court ruled that the parish's charter declared that St. James' held its property in trust for the diocese. The "Dennis Canon," states that all real and personal property was held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for the National Episcopal Church and the Diocese in which a Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The Pa Supreme Court held that the Dennis Canon did not deprive St James of a vested interest in property because the Charter of St James "makes clear that St. James had already agreed to hold its property in trust prior to the enactment of the Dennis Canon." Therefore, as to St. James, the Pa Supreme Court held that the Dennis Canon merely codified the trust relationship which already existed. Philadelphia attorney John H. Lewis Jr., who represents Fr. David Moyer in his lawsuits with Bishop Bennison said the decision has no negative effect on Good Shepherd. "Indeed, there are parts of the opinion that are favorable to the position of Good Shepherd. Secondly, the decision has absolutely no effect on the issues of fraud, collusion and bad faith for secular purposes that are presented in the two lawsuits brought by Father Moyer. Those lawsuits remain as a barrier to any attempt to move against the property. Thirdly, the decision resulted from the unique facts relating to St. James the Less. Their documents and the actions taken by St. James the Less are fundamentally different than the documents and actions of Good Shepherd." As at the time of going to press, the diocese had not told Fr. Ousley that he must vacate the property. "We have not had contact with the diocese but we expect to be thrown out," said Fr. Ousley. END THE FOLLOWING IS A STATEMENT BY FR. DAVID OUSLEY Dear Friends, The Supreme Court decision in our case Has been posted. It went against us. The majority reversed the trial court finding that the property belongs to the Diocese, but concurred that there exists an implied trust in favor of the Diocese. This was based not on the Dennis canon, but on various factors in the situation prior to that time. The majority opinon was written by Justice Nigro, and joined in by all the justices except Justice Newman. She wrote a concurring opinion, which concurred only in the ruling that the property belonged to the parish. She dissented on the existence of a trust, basing her argument primarily on the previous precedent (Beaver-Butler). In effect, the majority has altered their standards of what constitutes an implied trust, abandoning the standard of Beaver-Butler. This gives us the faint comfort of knowing that under the Beaver-Butler standard, we would have retained the property. The bottom line is that the decision was based on factors specific to St James, and is not of immediate applicability to anyone else. It does not (so far as I can tell) resolve the question of whether the Dennis canon is sufficient to create a trust -- an issue which affects many Episcopal parishes. You can look up the opinions on the Supreme Court web page if you wish. What happens next? Under the trial court ruling, the Diocese is now free to replace the vestry, and thereby take control of the parish. I don't know that I will find out how they wish to proceed until next week, with the holiday and all. They can also go to the Orphans Court to enforce the part of the ruling which calls for an accounting and assessment of damages against individual vestrymen (though only the four named vestry members, one of whom is now deceased, are immediately liable - JAA). We would hope that the Diocese will be committed to a smooth transition. . . . I expect that for the next Sunday or two (or longer?) we will gather at coffee after the ten o'clock for updates, and discussion about the various practical matters before us. I plan to maintain the usual service schedule (and Bible study) as long as possible. This could change, however, on short notice, depending on what the Diocese chooses to do. One practical matter I will mention here. contributions to the Church of St James the Less from here on are subject to a trust in favor of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Parish funds remain with the property when we leave. I want you to be clear about your contributions when you make them. This is, to put it mildly, a great disappointment. Being faithful to our principles has now cost us much that is dear. But the grace is before us to bear the Cross and follow Jesus -- as it always is. This is no doubt not the road we would have chosen, but we may be sure that God will turn the suffering to our good. This does not make the suffering any less painful. It does assure us that Jesus is bearing the greater part of the burden with us and for us. Remember also that the church is the faithful, not the buildings. The court can take from us nothing that is essential to life -- or to Life. While some may have intended us ill, God desires only our good. I trust you will be sensitive to one another at this difficult time, and be ready to encourage one another. It has been the sense of the parish that in this event, we would try to continue as a congregation, and we have made some contingency plans for the next steps. The vestry will be meeting . . . as soon possible. We will need to discern what plans God has for us, though we may be sure He has some. We can, even in the midst of sorrow, look forward with some anticipation to what He will do with us next. As always, we are to give thanks -- not for the evil of the situation, but because it is within God's providence. For that we can always be thankful, even when it contains the Cross. --Fr David Ousley is the Anglo-Catholic rector of St. James the Less in North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:48:31 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: MARYLAND: Episcopal Bishops allegedly ousted New Anglican Congregation from Presbyterian Church MARYLAND: Episcopal Bishops allegedly ousted New Anglican Congregation from Presbyterian Church http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3442 News Analysis By David W. Virtue BALTIMORE, MD (12/30/2005)--The two Episcopal Bishops of Maryland allegedly got a local Presbyterian Church to oust an independent Anglican church from its premises, in a spiteful act to force the parish out of the area. The 100-member Anglican Church of the Resurrection which is under the Diocese of Chile must vacate Brown Memorial Woodbrook Presbyterian Church by January 8. Its members celebrated Holy Communion and held its first services at the Presbyterian Church on Christmas Eve. The majority of the parishioners were once members of St. John's Episcopal Church in Glyndon, Maryland, but left the church, the diocese and the Episcopal Church over the denomination's gradual slide over many years into a revisionist theology which embraces the culture rather than standing firm on historic Biblical Christianity as stated in the creeds. The initial group of 40 members first met in a private home and but as they grew they needed to move out and obtained a lease from Brown Memorial, said a member of the servant council of the newly formed congregation. "We are a warm and loving community composed of Christians at various stages in their walks with Christ," wrote Fr. Eliot Winks, rector of the Church of the Resurrection at their website. "The intervention by the Maryland bishops at Christmas into this church's affairs was something they had no business doing," said an orthodox Episcopal rector who asked to remain anonymous. A newsletter put out by the "servant council" of the Church of the Resurrection said that as they became more successful, the bigger target they became for the misguided. On November 30 the new Anglican parish agreed to a two month trial period at Brown Memorial, starting on Christmas Eve. The deal was done with a handshake. It gave both Brown and the Church of the Resurrection the ability to walk away from the verbal agreement for any reason at the end of the term. Impressed with the offer they new church took a leap of faith and accepted the offer of sanctuary. However things started to unravel on Friday, December 16 at a local Christmas party. Patrick Cunningham, a member of the church's servant council had a conversation with a member of the Presbyterian Church's session (vestry) in which he was told that their Executive Presbyter (bishop) was being pressured by the bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland not to take us in. He told Cunningham that the topic was to be discussed at their next session meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, December 20. Cunningham received a phone call from this same representative of Brown on the evening of December 21, asking to meet for coffee the following morning. That meeting took place and he was joined by the rector of the Church of the Resurrection the Rev. Eliot Winks. The presbyter invoked a rule of the Presbyterian Church's Book of Order (canonical law) that states that any lease has to be submitted to the Executive Presbyter for approval, and that he would never have approved of this lease. On December 22, they were informed by a representative of Brown Memorial Woodbrook Presbyterian Church that they could only stay on their campus for three weeks. Their last service will be on January 8, 2006. "This despite the fact that they have had two other churches rent the same space over the last twenty years, never invoking this stipulation," said Cunningham. "In further conversation, it was revealed that all of this was a result of conversations between their Executive Presbyter Peter Nord and the Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland, John Rabb." "We firmly believe that Brown Memorial Woodbrook acted in good faith and are saddened that they were pushed into this untenable position. We thank them for doing their best to take us in," Cunningham told VirtueOnline. Revisionist Episcopal Maryland Bishop Robert W. Ihloff wrote to all his clergy following the ordination of Fr. Eliot Winks in Pittsburgh recently by Bolivian Bishop Frank Lyons blasting the actions of the Evangelical bishop and urging Winks to 'cease and desist' from clerical activity in his diocese." Ihloff wrote at that time saying, "he will serve a small group of former-Episcopalians who have left St. John's Church, Glyndon, now meeting in a private home and calling themselves The Church of the Resurrection, Baltimore County." Ihloff said the ordination was "irregular" and that he was not impressed with his (Winks) credentials; "obviously our judgment has proven sound." "So what is Ihloff afraid of? What are they (both bishops) afraid of? Why would they attempt to bring the full weight of their temporal power, authority, and influence to hurt us? We left ECUSA in peace. We have never spoken ill of our former parishes, the Diocese of Maryland, or ECUSA. They are in our past and when we have looked back, it has only been to pray for those that we left behind. We have no interest in tearing anything down, but rather building something new. ECUSA has been wasting away for some time from its own self-inflicted wounds, and if these actions are any indication, that process is accelerating. We will continue to pray for John and Bob, the Diocese of Maryland, and ECUSA," said Fr. Winks. "We have arisen from the Anglican Church and so we cherish and celebrate the many traditions and forms of worship that have evolved within the Anglican Communion. But, we are also a Church that was started by the laity and continues to be led by them. In this, we have even deeper roots than the Church of England. Our roots go back to the first century A.D., to the house churches that Paul formed as he moved through the Eastern Mediterranean. We are a blend of both. Our clergy is charged with teaching, equipping and casting vision while we, the laity, are invested with much responsibility in the governance and running of the Church." "It is disappointing; we will have to look for another place. This is nothing more than a roadblock, but by God's grace we will overcome this and be in the place he needs us to be," said the Rev. Eliot Winks, rector of Church of the Resurrection. Fr. Winks was recently ordained by Bolivian Bishop Frank Lyons for the Anglican bishop of Chile, the Most Rev. Hector Zavala in a ceremony at the Anglican Hope conference in Pittsburgh, PA. Neither Bishops Ihloff nor Rabb responded to e-mails from VirtueOnline requesting information on their involvement in this incident. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:50:03 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: MIDDLE EAST: Diocesan Convention Explodes over Possible ties with pro-gay ECUSA Dioceses MIDDLE EAST: Diocesan Convention Explodes over Possible ties with pro-gay ECUSA Dioceses http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3437 Special Report By David W. Virtue www.virtueonline.org AMMAN, Jordan (12/29/9005)--A heated debate broke out on the floor of the Jerusalem Diocesan Convention recently when sides were drawn up over whether the orthodox Middle East Diocese should twine with the revisionist Diocese of Los Angeles which openly espouses gay and lesbian unions. A source told VirtueOnline that Bishop-elect Suheil Dawani announced that he had recently visited Los Angeles and New York and that he had made agreements with the Bishop of Los Angeles to have a special relationship between their dioceses and the Diocese of Jerusalem. The Rev. Canon Suheil was recently elected Coadjutor Bishop of the Anglican Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem and the Middle East and will work alongside the current Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Bishop Riah Abu-Assal, for a period of two years before taking his place. The source said one priest was stunned and appalled by the possibility of entering into an agreement with the pro-gay American Episcopal dioceses and publicly protested. "I want to let you know that the Bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles is Jon Bruno, and that he is among the worst of the liberals because he has ordained a lesbian woman to the priesthood. I ask that we vote to discontinue this special relationship with Los Angeles, and that we forbid any such liberals who do not recognize the authority of Scripture from coming to the consecration (of bishop-elect Suhayl Dawani on January 6th) so that they do not ruin the consecration of our beloved Bishop and that they do not take advantage of the people of this diocese to further their political ends." There was immediate, spontaneous applause. The Bishop began to speak, but several delegates from the floor indicated that they wanted to continue this discussion later in the day. Several hours later the Bishop introduced the topic for discussion. A priest remarked that we should not use labels like "liberal" or "conservative." Another said that this topic was complicated and should be reviewed by the priests of the diocese in a special meeting. Another layman said that the relationship with Los Angeles should be maintained because not every parishioner there was bad. Two priests spoke up in support of an immediate motion to end special relations with Los Angeles, with one of them pleading for an end to the relationship after reading Romans 1. The Bishop cautioned the delegate who had opposed the special relationship "to relax," and offered him an opportunity to address the convention. The delegate agreed that labels like "liberal" and "conservative" were not helpful, and argued for labels "biblical" and "not biblical." The delegate then expressed surprise that a discussion was even necessary as Scripture was very clear on the issue. "God created humans - male and female, and everyone at this convention knows that (homosexuality) is a perverse behavior which is wrong. This gathering has the authority to cancel the special relationship with the Diocese of Los Angeles now." At that point a number of laymen and one priest present opposed the delegate vocally from the floor. The Bishop kept telling the delegate to relax. The delegate asked the laymen who were volubly opposing the issue what would be lost if relations were broken with the American diocese. "Why are you afraid of such a vote?" More heated talk erupted from the floor. The motion was called and seconded. The bishop and a few laymen heatedly opposed the motion. The delegate said; "Will the record then reflect that I asked for a vote and that my request was seconded, and that a vote was refused, contrary to the rules of the convention?" The Bishop and others said, no, we won't record that. The delegate sat down. Later the delegate asked the diocesan secretary if his request for a vote had been recorded. It had not. The source said that the delegate's request for a vote was considered out of order and not according to the way the Jerusalem convention is run; (it's function is more to rubberstamp the Bishop's agenda and to check for consensus on matters in which the Bishop is unsure of himself.) Only the Bishop is allowed to call for votes. "The process actually makes sense culturally, although not all members of the Diocese like it," he said. The matter was deferred to a later meeting of the clergy on December 20th. Bishop Riah completely controlled the meeting. At that meeting Riah began to speak about the "matter of Bruno" but changed the subject after a few sentences, and it was not brought up again. Details of the Jerusalem/Los Angeles Companion Diocese Relationship can be found online at http://www.episcopalnews.com/ViewArchiveArticle.php?key=121 The source asked VirtueOnline to record the following appeal to readers: "It is crucial in Jerusalem that our leaders hear from godly people. I would ask believers at all levels in the Anglican Communion prayerfully to consider communicating with Bishop-Elect Suheil Dawani and Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal via the diocesan email (ediocese-jer@j-diocese.com). In your communication, please pledge to pray for the Rev. Suheil's upcoming consecration and for the peace and prosperity of God's people in the Diocese of Jerusalem, and respectfully and lovingly encourage the Bishop not to continue alliances with those who are in rebellion against the authority of Scripture." END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:51:04 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: The Tide Is Rising In The Diocese Of Florida The Tide Is Rising In The Diocese Of Florida http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3455 By Harris Willman December 29, 2005 As 2005 draws to a close, we have been sadly reminded of the tsunami that brought such devastation just one year ago. Just as the multiple waves of that tsunami were caused by the one earthquake, there seem to be similar 'waves' of churches realigning away from The Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) and The Diocese of Florida (DoF) toward alternative Anglican jurisdictions due to the actions of the General Convention 2003?ECUSA's earthquake. The evidence of these waves is plain to see. Six Churches known as The Florida Six, also known as 'The First Wave', will officially separate themselves from the ECUSA and the DoF on January 1st, 2006. These churches are firm in their commitment to remain part of the world wide Anglican Communion, but due to conscience, find it spiritually necessary to separate themselves from the ECUSA now. The First Wave Churches are All Souls, Church of the Redeemer, both of Jacksonville , Grace Church, Orange Park , St. Michael's, Gainesville , St. Luke's Community of Life, Tallahassee , and Calvary , Jacksonville which realigned with an alternate Anglican jurisdiction on November 6th 2005 . They of course join with St. Peter's, Tallahassee (formerly St. John's ) who made their decision last October. As the First Wave moves forward, there is a Second Wave mounting rapidly behind it. The Second Wave may well be larger and cause a greater loss to the DoF than the first. There appears to be at least eight and possibly as many as fourteen other churches preparing themselves for a similar move to separate at some point between January 1st and soon after General Convention in June of 2006. Many of the Second Wave clergy and vestries have communicated with Bishop John Howard to express their spiritual solidarity with the First Wave churches and to urge him to be graceful in his handling of the issues surrounding the realignment, especially with property. The rector of one of these churches, The Rev. Mark R. Eldredge of Epiphany, Jacksonville shared his vestries' letter to Bishop Howard which said, "Along with many other congregations, we too are struggling with the issue of remaining loyal to the Episcopal Church unless there is the significant repentance as called for by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. We request therefore that those congregations in the Diocese of Florida who have already, for reasons of conscience, decided to align themselves with other Anglican jurisdictions be allowed to retain their properties. Please consider that the treatment of these congregations will affect our long term relationship." He also said that he knows of at least two other church vestries that have sent similar letters and that he has talked with many other rectors who have said they have spoken directly to Bishop Howard about their similar struggles. Many of these Second Wave churches have also chosen not to make a financial pledge to the DoF for 2006 and those that are pledging will only do so through June. Finally, if one looks very carefully, there is also a Third Wave racing in behind the first two. This Third Wave will likely not include entire congregations, but will be a silent majority of individuals and families from churches throughout the diocese that choose to remain in the DoF and the ECUSA. As General Convention concludes its legislative actions in June, and if, as expected, the ECUSA refuses to adequately repent of its prior decisions and actions concerning Biblical Authority, the Third Wave will mount quickly as individuals and families begin to leave from the churches where there is no action. Clearly, the realignment is not going to be limited to just six or seven churches in the Diocese of Florida! Similar waves of realignment are forming in dioceses throughout the USA. --Mr Willman is a leader of the Florida Chapter of the AAC. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:52:27 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: VIRGINIA: South Riding priest removed by Bishop Lee VIRGINIA: South Riding priest removed by Bishop Lee http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3451 Loudon Independent December 28, 2005 A priest who pulled his South Riding church out of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia in November has been removed from the priesthood, according to Episcopal Bishop Peter Lee. In November Reverend Phil Ashey announced that his South Riding congregation was leaving the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and affiliating itself with an Anglican diocese in Uganda. The change was made in protest of the 2003 consecration in New Hampshire of V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church. The South Riding Church joined approximately one dozen Episcopalian congregations in the U.S. which have switched to the Anglican Province of Uganda. In a news release issued Dec. 20 , Lee stated that Ashey had renounced his priesthood. Ashey has denied the renunciation, writing in a letter to Lee the that while he had resigned from his position with the Diocese of Virginia, he had not renounced the priesthood. According to Lee, Ashey removed himself from the priesthood last month when he wrote to church leaders that he was resigning his position as missioner, quitting the Episcopal Church and placing himself under the authority of a Ugandan Bishop. In the same letter Ashey wrote that all the assets of the South Riding Church are the property of the Dioceses of Virginia, Lee said. Clerical members of a Diocese of Virginia committee later voted to officially remove Ashey from the priesthood based on Lee's recommendation. "I take no pleasure in this action," Lee stated. "By his letter and statements, however, Phil has stated his clear desire no longer to be part of the Episcopal Church, and the path, then, is clear. Phil is no longer a priest of the Episcopal Church." According to Ashey, he refused to sign a letter of renunciation during during a meeting with Church officials. "My resignation is not a renunciation," Ashey said Tuesday. "Bishop Lee is misusing the plain language of Canon III.13. There is only one Holy Order to which a Priest is ordained, and it is neither American nor Ugandan. I have not renounced the Holy Orders conferred upon me at ordination. I have not renounced the spiritual gifts and authority that were conferred upon me in ordination as a minister of God's Word and Sacraments. I have not renounced the Ordained Ministry. In fact, I have reaffirmed my Orders and calling to Ordained Ministry in all of my communications. I have not signed the written declaration mandated by Canon III.13." Diocese of Virginia officials have not yet decided how to restart the South Riding Church, Lee stated. The South Riding Church has approximatley 150 members. Ashey and many members of the congregation still gather, calling their church the South Riding Anglican Church. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:53:17 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: WASHINGTON, D.C.: Priest "regrets" excommunication of parishioner,Diocese Drops Charges WASHINGTON, D.C.: Priest "regrets" excommunication of parishioner Diocese Drops Charges http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3443 by Patrick Shaughness 12/30/2005 I received a decision today from the Disciplinary Review Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington which dismisses canonical charges filed against Rev. Alison Quin. Charges against Rev. Albie Hazen and the Rev. Canon Carol Cole Flanagan had previously been dismissed. The charges stemmed from Quin's excommunication of my wife, Linda Graves Shaughness, in April, 2004 when she was a parishioner at St. David's, Washington, DC. The complaint, filed by myself and our daughter, Gabrielle, accused Quin and the other respondents of illegal and abusive conduct calculated to expel Linda from the parish Vestry for what Quin had called Linda's "dissenting theological position(s)". The Committee decision finds that our complaint, sworn under oath, does not support the charges made against Rev. Quin. Our complaint pointed out that the rubric was imposed in public, violating the requirements of the Book of Common Prayer [page 409]. The decision cites a letter written by Quin to our Bishop in which she regrets "not taking greater care in her handling of the disciplinary matter". We have not received this letter and it is not clear why it should be considered exculpatory. Furthermore, this decision does not conclude the disciplinary process. In August, 2005 it came to my attention that the Rector of Quin's current parish, Rev. Ken Howard, had made statements about Linda which repeated and added to false accusations made by Quin. I asked our Bishop to temporarily inhibit Quin and Howard so as to protect our family from further harm, and to forward the complaint to the Disciplinary Review Committee. He refused to inhibit the priests, but the complaint against Howard remains before the Committee. The Committee has never dealt with Howard's conduct, which I found worse than Quin's in some ways. So because the matter still under consideration, I am not in a position to comment further on the substance of the complaint or the Committee deliberations. I am a realist regarding the fairness and integrity of the ECUSA disciplinary process. Whatever the final outcome, any person can read the Committee decisions and our complaint and decide for themselves if the abuse heaped upon our family, which we describe under oath, is addressed or justified. And since our complaint was posted on the internet, many have expressed shock at the heavy-handed conduct of the priests and others involved, who include the highest officials in our Diocese. We have been heartened by the support and prayers offered by Christians all over the world. We have heard other stories of persons who have been excommunicated just to remove them from a Vestry or to otherwise silence them. I remain prayerful, and hopeful, that our Church will act justly. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:54:08 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: OHIO: Rebels on principle OHIO: Rebels on principle Dissident Episcopalians in Chillicothe form new congregation http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3441 December 30, 2005 by Aaron Marshall THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH CHILLICOTHE, Ohio - No stained-glass windows. No pews. No church choir. And definitely no parking spots left out front. The new (rented) home of the Chillicothe Anglican Fellowship is packed to the rafters. The storefront once housed one of Ross County's rowdiest, two-fisted drinking joints. Now it's the center of a quiet, though no less explosive, religious rebellion. It's been that way since the Rev. Rick Terry decided enough was enough and shepherded most of his flock, about 60 people, two blocks north and around the corner from St. Paul's Episcopal Church to the coffeehouse on N. Paint Street. That was in the summer of 2004, when the Episcopal Church USA - the American wing of the Anglican Church - horrified many conservative members by elevating Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, to bishop of New Hampshire. "We had seen it develop for many years," said Bill Schultz, an 82-year-old Chillicothe resident who left behind the church where he was confirmed in 1952 to follow Terry. "But Gene Robinson was a turning point. It was something that everyone saw and everyone could understand." The splintering in Chillicothe is a window into a painful schism poised to take center stage in June, when the Episcopal Church USA brings its national convention to Columbus. With the backers of the mainline church girding for the fight by drawing up a plan to hold onto church property in the event of a large-scale walkout, it seems inevitable that others will be joining Terry and pastors like him. While the Robinson consecration was the final straw, Terry and his backers bristle at the suggestion that they are anti-homosexual. Terry said the real issue for him was that Robinson was involved in an extramarital relationship. The Robinson affair, in Terry's view, is just one component of liberalism run amok among church leaders at odds with the people in the pews. "For several decades, I've perceived a slide toward a universalist view that undermines the uniqueness of Jesus Christ," the 56-year-old rector said. "It has accommodated the mores of the culture rather than the traditions the church has always taught." It's difficult to pinpoint how many congregations are rebelling nationwide. Richelle Thompson, spokeswoman for the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio, downplays the split, noting that Terry is the only defector in its region. Still, four churches in the Akron area voted to leave the Cleveland-based Diocese of Ohio in early November. On the recent Sunday morning when parking was at a premium in front of Terry's makeshift church, there were plenty of spots at St. Paul's. Inside, a dozen elderly worshippers sat on folding chairs set up in a kitchen area while the church undergoes renovations. Walt Mycoff, the diocese's canon for ministry, also serves part time as one of the interim pastors at St. Paul's. He said the church is "stabilizing" and draws about 40 worshippers for the two weekly services. Terry's permanent replacement is expected to be named this summer. Mycoff said he finds Terry's decision puzzling because Bishop Herbert Thompson Jr., the spiritual head of the diocese, voted against Robinson's confirmation. "I see our diocese as moderate," he said. Spokeswoman Thompson said the church has traditionally been a threelegged stool of reason, Scripture and tradition. "For Rick Terry and some others, I think Scripture is getting a higher ranking. We think that we should view our faith through all three equally. We think that's what God wants us to do." Terry's split with the church hierarchy came to a head when he attempted to affiliate St. Paul's with the Anglican Communion Network, a breakaway group of conservative Anglicans. Bishop Thompson ordered Terry to cut off contact with the renegade group. Terry, who was deposed by Thompson, said he was left without options. "We sort of felt like we were kicked out as much as we were leaving," said John Street, a 49-year-old church member who left St. Paul's with Terry. With white hair receding around the temples and a ready smile, the thoughtful Terry doesn't look the part of rebel leader. But, he said, he's comfortable in his new role. Small things, such as mingling with the congregation or preaching without notes, he said, have reinvigorated his ministry. Come spring, Terry will lead a new push by partnering with pastors in Chillicothe's predominantly black neighborhoods. Worship won't be the only item on the agenda, as church members will help renovate long-shuttered drug houses one nail at a time. "I don't think that would have come about had we not made the move," he said. "It's made us more open to doing things out of the ordinary." Terry's spiritual renewal, however, has not come without cost. In leaving St. Paul's, Terry gave up a steady salary and perks, including a college fund established for his four children. Now, he works part-time painting houses to make ends meet. Terry said he knows other leaders who would like to leave the church, but worry about the sacrifice. In hindsight, Terry views the breakup as "incredibly difficult," but necessary. In a recent interview, he reflected on the unusual path upon which his reading of the Scripture has taken him. "I can honestly say that I never thought I would be doing something like this." END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:55:03 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: NIGERIA: Anglican Church disowns Nigerian gay activist NIGERIA: Anglican Church disowns Nigerian gay activist http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3454 INDEPENDENT NEWS LAGOS (January 2, 2006)--The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has disowned Davis Mac-Iyalla, a self confessed gay activist. The church insisted in a statement issued in Abuja that Mac-Iyalla ceased to be a member of the communion since 2003. The statement signed by its Director of Communications, Rev. Canon Akintunde Popoola, said that results of extensive searches confirmed that Mac-Iyalla could not be traced to any particular congregation. "He is not registered in any of our more than 10,000 local parishes as of the past two years. None of our more than 6,000 priests recognise him as an active member in any of their parishes," the statement said. Mac-Iyalla, who is the Director of Changing Attitude of Nigeria (CAN), a group that claims to be made up of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Communion in Nigeria, has been campaigning for an end to the prejudice against homosexuals in the church. Lately he has been identified in the country's media as the victimized homosexual who was chased out of the Anglican Church because of his sexual orientation. The Church refuted the claim in the statement alleging that Mac-Iyalla, a former staffer of the Diocese of Otukpo till 2003, bolted with some large sums including salaries of workers. While his homosexual orientation is not in doubt, the Church insists that the man still has a case to answer with the police in Otukpo over his alleged offences. The disclaimer alleged that Mac-Iyalla had used the false notion of his supposed victimization in the Anglican Church to defraud unsuspecting victims. Mac-Iyalla came to the limelight after a national daily published an interview last October on the subject of homosexuality in the Anglican Church. He reportedly claimed that his group was made up of more than 2,000 gays, lesbians and bisexual people, who were seeking an end to the prejudice against homosexuals. He criticized the recent campaign by the Primate of Church of Nigeria, the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, against acceptance of homosexual practice in the Church. Last November, the group organized a controversial national convention which the organizations website claimed was attended by about 800 people. But Mac-Iyalla and his group in a statement purportedly released at the end of the meeting warned the Anglican Church to "stop colluding with cultural repression and discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexual people in all parts of the world." Meanwhile, the Primate, Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, Archbishop Peter Akinola, has called for an end to all false claims of piety in the country. In his New Year message entitled "Remove the Mask" Akinola said that Nigerians were wearing masks, referring to the pretence and deceit that has permeated every facet of the national life. On religious leaders, he warned: "False prophets are called upon to remove their masks and stop the exploitation and manipulation of the gullible and unsuspecting members of their flock." He said that religious leaders should learn to be good shepherd that feed their flock and not exploiters. The Primate, who is also the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), did not spare the family when he declared that husbands and wives must remove the mask of unfaithfulness. "As we enter the New Year husbands and wives should remove their masks of unfaithfulness and be true to their marital commitments," he said. CopyrightCopyright 2004. www.independentng.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:56:14 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: ENGLAND: Commissary plan to appease the opponents of women bishops ENGLAND: Commissary plan to appease the opponents of women bishops http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3436 By Alex Delmar-Morgan CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEWSPAPER December 23, 2005 THE latest provision for those opposed to the consecration of women bishops could see a parish given the power to opt out of the local bishop's pastoral care and look to a representative of either Archbishop under plans being considered by the House of Bishops. A draft of the 62-page document, marked 'strictly confidential' on every page was approved in October of this year, and has been leaked to The Church of England Newspaper. Sources say what is outlined in this draft is close to the final blueprint that will be unveiled at the General Synod in February. Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (TEA) is the 'carrot' designed to appease traditionalists who threaten to drive a wedge through the Church if their needs are not adequately catered for. Under the proposals, jurisdiction will be transferred to the Metropolitan, with the 'episcopal ministry' being provided by a Provincial Episcopal Commissary (PEC) appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or York. The PEC would exercise aspects of the Archbishop's authority over those parishes that had applied for TEA, including pastoral care, sacramental and disciplinary procedures and any matters relating to ordinands, while others would be delegated back to the diocesan bishop. This is almost identical to the current system of 'flying bishops', technically known as Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEV) who minister to parishes unable to accept women priests. This will mean the dismantling of the1993 Act of Synod which devised the current legislation. The document declaring the bishops' approval of TEA as the most realistic way forward states: "It would enable the main body of the Church to proceed without the discriminatory provisions against women's ministry. It believes that it would offer the most satisfactory way of providing adequate pastoral safeguards for those opposed to the ordination of women bishops while at the same time maintaining the highest possible degree of communion between those with differing views on the question." But Anglo-Catholics are likely to be dismayed by the new plans and will see them as falling short of what is necessary to safeguard their future in the Church of England. The Bishop of Guilford, the Rt Rev Christopher Hill, responsible for drawing up the report with two other senior bishops and a woman archdeacon, has been criticised for taking so long in reaching a proposal that is too similar to the status quo of 'flying bishops'. One bishop branded the new scheme as 'totally unworkable'. He pointed out if an Archbishop was ever a woman, the PEC would have been appointed by a female, which many would find unacceptable. Further problems would now arise in making extra arrangements for another bishop to be the point of contact for the PEC. He said: "TEA is not adequate ecclesiologically and is just moving the problem from the bishop to the archbishop. A diocesan bishop would not be satisfactory because he would be participating and party to the ordination of women. So the archbishop would either be participating and party to the ordination of women bishops or he would be standing aloof from it, in which case he might as well belong to the free province." It would also appear from the report the Church of England has conceded that one day it might have a female Archbishop of Canterbury, a startling admission considering women bishops are not yet in place. The document says that TEA would only work if 'special arrangements' were made 'in an event' of a female archbishop, but goes on to embrace the notion wholeheartedly declaring: "If the day comes when a woman is installed on the throne of St Augustine, it will indeed be a notable day in church history, and the continuing life of the Church Universal in mission." This, while revealing the Church's thinking at the highest level, marks a dramatic U-turn on earlier proposals to keep only men eligible for the posts of Archbishop of Canterbury and York. In saying this however, bishops recognise the most fundamental problem of all; that many members of the Church of England would still not have accepted women as bishops and there would still be many overseas provinces in the Anglican Communion where women may never be admitted to the Episcopate. As a result, the document calls for the Crown Nominations Committee (CNC) to be given the 'statutory authority in relation only to the see of Canterbury to take into account the acceptability at that point, across the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, of a woman archbishop.' One bishop said of this: "There is no theology in the Crown Nominations Committee. It would be like saying whether a woman is appropriate for the presidency of an African country. The issue is whether this is possible, not whether it is a good idea." Women campaigners are liable to lambaste the power given to the CNC saying it is highly discriminatory. Overall reaction from the Church over the suitability of provision being prescribed in this report remains to be seen. One senior bishop dismissed the whole document as a 'fudge', adding it is written in 'impenetrable jargon'. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:57:18 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: As Eye See It: Thoughts on the Windsor Report: What Went Wrong? - by Paul F. M. Zahl As Eye See It: Thoughts on the Windsor Report: What Went Wrong? - by Paul F. M. Zahl http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3452 By Paul F. M. Zahl December 31, 2005 The Report of the Lambeth Commission is flawed fundamentally because it refuses to take up the substantial issue that caused its coming into existence: the issue of homosexuality. "Process" statements will not suffice at this juncture in Anglican church history. Theological "conservatives" can take heart from most of the findings of the Report, although it is deficient in equating the New Hampshire consecration with the crossing of diocesan boundaries on the part of "orthodox" bishops and primates. Two further problems with the Report are its ambiguous use of the Bible in relation to an issue on which the Bible is unambiguous; and in its ultimate result, which papers over the cracks. There was a headline a few years ago in a college lampoon newspaper that read: "Michael Jackson: What Went Wrong?" It went without saying, something had gone wrong. I would like to ask the same question concerning the Windsor Report. And this is now after the sixth reading, as Ian Douglas and I recently completed a conversation about the document for Church Publishing. It weighs on me very much, as it seems from my end that the Report went seriously wrong. In this brief essay I would like to outline what I think is missing and unsatisfactory about the Report, then reflect on what it means: what it means for ECUSA, what it means for the Anglican Communion, and what it means for the Anglican project as a whole in the contemporary world. The Lambeth Commission took a big risk and at the same time ducked one when it decided that its brief did not include the subject of homosexuality in theological perspective. The Report makes that clear in Section A.26 and again in Section B.43: "We repeat that we have not been invited, and are not intending, to comment or make recommendations on the theological and ethical matters concerning the practice of same sex relations and the blessing or ordination or consecration of those who engage in them." This is the fundamental problem of the Report. The Report fails, by conscious intent, to discuss the issue that brought it to birth. It fails, by deliberate and explicit admission, to give one single word of argument that impinges on the catalytic catastrophe that ignited the worldwide crisis to which the work of the Lambeth Commission was the supposed solution. It is like the hypothetical failed call in a rector search process. Something basic in the call to the new rector was wrong. Perhaps the bishop was opposed but was afraid to say so. Perhaps a fact was concealed from the vestry that would come out later. Perhaps there was something wrong in the situation from which the new rector was coming. Perhaps members of the search committee had objections that were underreported or were squelched. The implications for what resulted-the tenure of the successful candidate-became enormous. Problems in the call finally scuttled the result. I feel that is what happened with the Windsor Report. The brief of the Commission was restricted to issues of process, and theologically speaking, to issues of "communion" and therefore ecclesiology. This was too limited a brief. For this reason the answers given by the Report are not enough. They provide nothing like a coherent foundation for discussing the issue as a whole. The reason for ducking the issue, which is homosexuality, was probably that the Commission supposed the Anglican Communion to be divided on the issue. One persistent, worldly way to avoid division is to avoid discussing what has caused the division. But that is a short-term solution! Ultimately, the whole thing has to be engaged, hammer and tong, root and branch, for anything that is lastingly powerful to be derived. It is like the old illustration of the broken arm that has been poorly set. The arm has to be broken again in order for it to be reset, properly. It is like the wound that has become infected because it was poorly dressed. The dressing has to be removed; the infection cut out, sometimes with excruciating pain; and the cut stitched and re-dressed. The Commission took the line that its brief included none of this. The Commission claimed that the Communion had already spoken, especially through Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10, although it never really acknowledged the arguments for or against that controversial finding. The Commission also envisioned the possibility that the Communion might come to a different "consensus" later on (Section D.134). The whole line of the Commission s approach was to view the issue in terms of a process of containing difference rather than a process of exploring difference. What went wrong? It was a failure in its mandate, a failure in its brief. Personally, I can only report the exact same phenomenon having taken place in connection with the Inter-Anglican Theology and Doctrine Commission, on which I have served since 2001. I am certain that Archbishop George Carey appointed us with the idea that we would come to some kind of discussion regarding homosexuality in Communion perspective, with special, stated reference to a proposed document written by Maurice Sinclair and Drexel Gomez entitled "Mending the Net." This discussion never happened! Every time I brought up the contentious but utterly central issue of homosexuality in the church, that topic was nixed. It was stated again and again that our brief was solely to examine process. Says who? I asked. Even the Sinclair/Gomez document was put on the shelf repeatedly until the Bishop of Chile simply could no longer stay silent and insisted that we be true to our first stated brief. Very late in the day, and in a thoroughly unthorough manner, the document was briefly, fleetingly discussed. My point is: Can we expect a lasting solution to an extremely important and damaging problem if we are unwilling from the starting gate to go into the "thorny wood" of the problem itself? I don't think so. Or rather, I cannot see how. Can you? Is there anything like intellectual honesty in a process that never goes to the root of the problem? Whether you are "conservative" or "liberal" on the subject itself, whether you are Gene Robinson or Peter Akinola, what hope is there of some authentic reconciliation if the chief point of difference is not brought out into the open? I feel almost certain that most members of the gay community would agree with this. We have got to look at this with a genuinely open heart and Bible and church. It is just possible that something in the way of reconciliation can and could happen. Did Luther wish to discuss matters of "communion" with Cardinal Cajetan? No. All Luther asked for was a forum to discuss the gospel issues on his mind. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, kept trying to pole-vault over the arguments themselves by simply asking Luther whether he had written the books that were published with his name. Luther replied, to his great credit: "Tell me where I am wrong in terms of the Scriptures. Go with me into the place of contention. Walk with me, and disagree with me, if you will, in terms of the ideas themselves." The church tried to silence Luther with process. The analogy is correct because the Reformers asked only one thing from their adversaries: the chance to discuss the core and not the subsidiary issues of Christianity. The Windsor Report is a massive lost opportunity because it restricts its brief way too much. Now, a closer look at the actual findings of the Report: When I first read the Report of the Lambeth Commission, I was encouraged. Writing as a theological conservative, I was encouraged by the note of scriptural confidence and authority that is sounded in Section A. I was encouraged by the reliance on the Communion documents that have already spoken to the subject of homosexuality. In ECUSA context, I was encouraged by the strength of the invitationan enjoining, really-in Section D, that the Episcopal Church express its "regret" for having "breached the bonds of affection" that should characterize Christian communion on any account. I liked, as well, the similar enjoining concerning the blessing of same-sex unions. Like many others, I wished that a stronger verb had been used than "regret." Realizing that "repent" might sound overly strong to some ears, I could conceive of other expressions closer to the word we traditionalists wanted. Maybe "personal remorse" or "heartfelt sorrow." Like most others of the so-called "orthodox," I was troubled by the last recommendation in section D concerning the care of dissenting minorities. It seemed to me that the Commission was backing the proposal concerning delegated episcopal pastoral oversight (DEPO) that the ECUSA House of Bishops had offered in March 2003. Many of us had felt chilly towards this proposal because it was conceived and prepared not by the "losers," or the ones who requested it and believe they really needed it, but rather by the "victors." Very little imput from the losers! Therefore the House of Bishops' proposal failed to gain the trust of the losing side, from which it would have to have originated in order to succeed in practice. Now the Windsor Report backs this very proposal, the proposal of ECUSA's House of Bishops dated March 2003. This remains a huge stumbling block for conservatives. Similarly, the Report equates the crossing of geographical boundaries, which some overseas bishops and primates have done to protect and support dissenting Episcopal parishes in the USA and in Canada, with the trespass, in Gene Robinson's consecration, to which that crossing was the response. The "orthodox" don't see it this way at all! We never will. To us, the crossing of boundaries, while regrettable, is in no way on a par with the departure from faith and morals represented by the consecration of a gay bishop. The former is not good, the latter is catastrophic. So we felt-and I think you would find this across the board among "conservatives"-that the Report did not sustain us in any real way. There even seemed to be a slap, specifically, at Network bishops in ECUSA, when they were portrayed as being "dismissive" of the Communion they had pledged to uphold. Thus the last part of Section D, on the care of dissenting minorities-which is the key section for us-fell short of what we had hoped for. I would say that the Report fell about twenty percent short of what we had hoped for. Like the last strikeout in the close of the ninth inning, that twenty percent makes all the difference. Those were my initial thoughts on the findings of the Report. And I think they were and are held quite widely by people on the "traditional" side of the Communion. But after reading and rereading the work of the Commission again and again in recent months, I think the problem is deeper than simply the last section. The problem relates to the Anglican project as a whole, a project to which I still feel committed and one which many of us, "liberals" and "conservatives" alike, have served for decades now. There are two serious concerns I continue to have with the Windsor Report. These concerns have deepened with time and reflection. The first concern is the manner in which the Report seems to take away with the left hand what it gives with the right. This is especially true in its treatment of biblical hermeneutics or interpretation. On the one hand, the Report treats the Letter to the Ephesians, as well as First Corinthians, in quite exalted fashion. The metaphysical churchmanship of Ephesians and the "Body of Christ" theology in First Corinthians are given forceful expression. At the same time, however, much is made of the distinction between verbal word and Incarnate Word. In other words, the Bible is not allowed to hold the value of binding verbal assertion but is rather the "bearer" of a vital force beyond it. Now I agree with that distinction in principle. (The Reformers made it, so it must be right!) But I fear it can be deployed deleteriously in the case of homosexuality, in order to detach our interest from the overwhelming evidence of a plain case. In the case of homosexuality, the Bible is just too unanimous. It declares itself in too weighted and powerful a way. It cannot be explained or otherwise interpreted. So I am afraid that the awesome view of scriptural weight with which the Report announces itself at the start is weakened considerably, and somewhat special-pleadingly in this context, by the emphasis on "nuance" (that politically correct noun) which follows it. I kept thinking, the more I read the Report in its function as Bible interpreter: It speaks with a forked tongue. Now is such doublespeak, which is what I think it adds up to finally, a characteristic of Anglicanism qua Anglicanism? I believe Presbyterians and Methodists and Lutherans, too, would recognize it as part of their baggage. They tell me this all the time. They complain that official "church statements" are constantly crafted to speak to differing constituencies. Therefore they usually say nothing. At the same time, you can sometimes detect such doublespeak in our own prayer book tradition. Is our American 1928 Communion service "protestant" or "catholic"? The answer is, a little bit of both. But is the 1662 Church of England service "catholic" or "protestant"? Clearly "protestant." We are, in other words, capable of speaking with one single voice, or better, one consistent voice, sometimes. I think the Windsor Report speaks with two voices. Every time one finds oneself almost safely set within its pages, one gets ejected three pages later. The second concern I have with the Report is the bigger one. This has to do with its intentional and very emphatically stated rejection of what should have been its primary work: theological engagement with the subject of homosexuality in biblical and historical Christian perspective. People tell me all the time: "Don't you realize, the Commission could never, ever have come to one mind on that subject! The only way they could possibly have produced a Report without a minority filing was to say, 'Hands off the big one and focus on the little one.'" I cannot agree. Such is not honest intellectual practice. Not at all. They could have fissured on the theme but then come together on the communion theme. But they should have dealt with the theme. What happens in the church is that we major in process when we cannot come together on substance. Then the process finally fails, too. Remember what Noam Chomsky said so bitingly about the Israeli/Palestinian "peace process": "It is not a process and it is not about peace." It is invoked precisely to prevent peace! We need to listen to Chomsky when it comes to "process." If you are a "liberal" reading this, do you not agree? And if you are a "conservative"? Can you really sign up for something that is pasting over the real issue? I think of an episode in Inginar Bergman's heavy television play thirty years ago entitled "Scenes from a Marriage." One of the early episodes was called, "Papering over the Cracks." The Windsor Report, in avoiding by design the issue that caused it to be appointed, has papered over the cracks. That is why it will never decide the questions it addresses. It is founded upon sand. It is the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes." In conclusion, here is a word of interpretation, or theological and ecclesiological reflection, which arises from this critique of the Windsor Report. What is the future of Anglicanism? Or at least for our lifetimes, what is the future of Anglicanism? If "facing both ways" is the essence of the project, then it cannot stand. It will not stand. I do not say this because I do not wish it to stand. I say it because the truth-and I am not speaking in the exalted sense of "apostolic truth" or something like that but rather in the simple sense of what is conceptually and also empirically verifiable-has to underwrite whatever a person does. We cannot live out of an evasion. Evasion never stands. Evasion is always submitted to the light, eventually. There are no exceptions to this. You cannot live from a falsehood, or a conscious attempt to short-circuit discussion. Marriages that do this, family relationships that do, falter. Old love letters are discovered, people write memoirs, protagonists "come out." It is also true in the life of the mind. Ernst Kaesemann told me bluntly and passionately when I first saw him in the Spring of 1992, "Herr Zahl, you must follow ideas wherever they lead. It is the first requirement of research that you be prepared never ever to shrink from the implications of the data. If you do, you are bankrupt to your cause." Kaesemann added that this principle holds true in theology as well as in everything else. I cannot finish with the Windsor Report without remembering Kaesemann's shocking words. No deception, he seems to say. No pandering. No ducking. W. H. Auden said something like this from a parallel universe: "The truth is catholic; the search for it is protestant." Because the Windsor Report is not "protestant" in its search for truth, the truth it seeks to offer can never be "catholic." This article was recently published in the Anglican Theological Review. -- Paul F. M. Zahl is Dean and President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He has served on the Inter-Anglican Theology and Doctrine Commission since 2001 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:58:30 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: As Eye See It: Global South Primates should present Williams with fait accompli for Lambeth As Eye See It: Global South Primates should present Williams with fait accompli for Lambeth http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3444 by Christopher S. Johnson Webster Groves, Missouri Midwest Conservative Journal 1/1/2006 I don't know if any of this is going to happen. I do know that it needs to happen if orthodox Anglicanism is to have much of a chance in this country. If ECUSA does what everyone expects it to do, the Global South bishops are going to have to force the issue. They're going to have to declare that if ECUSA's next Presiding Bishop is invited to the next primates meeting, they won't be there. At the very least, they're going to have to demand that the heads of the US and Canadian Networks receive invitations as well. In other words, they're going to have to present Dr. Williams with a fait accompli and let him deal with the ramifications. And the Network bishops are going to move beyond open letters and Pittsburgh meetings and start acting like they believe their rhetoric. Bishops like Peter Akinola and Henry Orombi can only do so much. If ECUSA spits in the faces of the Communion once again, then the Network bishops are going to have to proceed as if the split has happened whether it formally happens or not. I expect GC06 to produce some babble that will be intended to agree with the Windsor Report, but will be treating Windsor the same as the revisionists treat Scripture: "It means what we say it means." Unless there is a clear statement to adhere to what the Global South bishops intended, I will leave. For a variety of largely personal reasons, it will not be immediately, but I will be forced to depart. I have been an Episcopalian for thirty years, and rate of heresy formation is increasing exponentially. I may seek to start a congreagation via the ACN or related, or I may head to some form of Presbyterianism (I believe that the Reformation was the recovery of catholic Christianity)-- but I will leave. For the sake of the health of my soul and that of my family, there is no other choice. 1/1/2006 11:58:26 AM Prophet Micaiah So the orthodox ECUSAians think the Anglican Communion and especially the African primates are going to save them!!! They can't even deal with this posterboy for evil bishops. No excommunication, deposition, even unkind words. How can they be depended on to do any think but talk and posture. Don't lean on that frail reed. Obey God and get out. 1/1/2006 10:03:29 AM GB I am sure there are several thousand priests who would agree with you, Senior Priest. And I can assure you there are probably just as many lay people who have been there and done that. That is why we now say the time to get out of ECUSA is today. Let the dead bury the dead. Move on. Happy New Year1 1/1/2006 8:13:37 AM Clown Celebrant I am disgusted. There are people risking their lives in the cause for Christ around the world. Meanwhile, we Western Panseys quibble. Kiss off the silly Griswoldians an move into the land of the living breathing courageous grown up Christians. Let the dead bury the dead. Move on. Happy New Year! 1/1/2006 1:06:52 AM ON THE OTHER HAND What if the Anglican Communion Network gets rolled at GenCon? What if ECUSA comes up with yet another clear evasion of the Windsor Report, yet another attempt to play for time? What if those who will automatically respond favorably to anything ECUSA comes up with declare that they believe that ECUSA is now in compliance with the Windsor Report while others declare that it clearly is not? What if, in response to the controversy, the Network and other orthodox Anglicans around the world urge us all to "wait until Lambeth?" I hope conservative bishops are intelligent enough to realize that that would be the worst possible response they could make. For one thing, there is no guarantee that Lambeth will even deal with the issue at all. Rowan Williams has already indicated that he intends to make Lambeth as confrontation-free as he possibly can: Archbishop Ellison said, "We are working very hard to orient the Conference around God's mission of transformation and reconciliation, seeing the bishops themselves as primary resources in this task. Through experiences provided in small bible study and expanded conversation groups, we expect that the bishops will encounter God's word anew, be engaged with one another at a very deep level, and then empowered in their vocation as leaders in God's mission. In keeping with Archbishop Rowan's vision, the Conference process will be relational not confrontation in its approach with a minimum of resolutions." If ECUSA, in convention assembled, rejects the Windsor Report next year, it will not change its mind two years later. Indeed, any ECUSA bishops at Lambeth will declare that they can't change their church's mind, that only the church meeting in convention can do that, which puts off any decision until 2009 at the earliest. All this, of course, assumes that ECUSA wants to resolve this issue on any terms other than its own which it clearly does not. When ECUSA rejects the Windsor Report next year, in whatever form that rejection takes, conservatives will no longer be able to hide behind facile declarations like "We have not chosen to walk apart, ECUSA has." When ECUSA walks apart, orthodox Anglicans here in the United States and around the world are going to have to start acting like it. This means that orthodox primates are going to have to walk out of the next primates' meeting if the next ECUSA Presiding Bishop walks in. And if need be, they're going to have to be willing to leave Canterbury behind. This also means that Network bishops are going to have to start taking risks. They're going to have to be willing to provide alternate oversight to orthodox parishes in liberal dioceses, regardless of what the local bishop says or does. They're going to have to be willing to perform confirmations and other episcopal duties if asked. They're going to have to risk presentment charges. And when the time comes, they're going to have to leave ECUSA to its apostasy and begin the job of rebuilding American Anglicanism. But we have to wait and see what the Canadians do at General Synod in 2007. No we don't. When ECUSA rejects the Windsor Report, American conservatives have to proceed as if the split has happened and pray that Canadian conservatives are wise enough to do the same thing when the Anglican Church of Canada rejects it as well. We can't put this off any longer, for any reason. Time is a luxury Anglican conservatives no longer have. There have been too many trumped-up inhibitions of too many orthodox priests and too many orthodox congregations turned out of too many meeting houses. ECUSA has had three years to repent of GenCon 2003. If another rejection is met with yet another delay, many of us will throw up our hands and get on with our lives. Why should we continue to fight for a church and a tradition that others refuse to fight for? I've said this at other times during the Current Unpleasantness but I think this really is it. 2006 is orthodox Anglicanism's last chance. END ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 21:59:40 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: As Eye See It: The Abuse of Tolerance - by Brett Cane As Eye See It: The Abuse of Tolerance - by Brett Cane http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3445 The Abuse of Tolerance By Brett Cane The Challenge of Tolerance Tolerance is a watchword in our society today. Being open to a variety of beliefs or lifestyles has become one of the prime virtues for a modern person. At the same time, it has become a major challenge facing Christians. In our disputes with the world or within the church, we accuse each other of "intolerance". But we look at tolerance today with different eyes than a few years ago. The following assumptions or situations of society lie behind the subtle but significant transformation in our definition and view of tolerance: * the first issue is truth itself: these days, people are establishing their own personal sets of values. When we make a statement we might hear the comment, "Well that may be true for you, but not for me." Truth has become relative, no longer absolute. * the second issue is pluralism: with so many options and religions in the world, how can you say any one way is right? * the third issue is love, inclusivism: we are challenged, "If you are a Christian, you have to love and include me; therefore you have to accept me, that is, agree with what I am doing" * the fourth issue is our nature as Canadians: tolerance is especially crucial for us - as a country, we evolved, we did not rebel; our geography impels us to shun extremes, divergences - we feel we have to keep together and avoid disputes. One word, two meanings These assumptions and situations have led to a new definition of tolerance. It is important to understand that there has been a subtle but significant change in the whole concept of what tolerance is. It has become one word with two meanings. I am thankful to the Christian apologist Josh McDowell for an article I have found most helpful on the subject. * traditional: the traditional definition of tolerance has been to recognize and respect other's beliefs, practices, etc, without necessarily agreeing or sympathising with them. In other words, everyone has the right to his or her own opinion. * post-modern: the definition in use today has become that every individual's beliefs, values, lifestyle and truth claims are equally valid. In other words, all beliefs are equal. What has happened is that we have moved beyond respecting a person's rights, to saying that every person is right. It demands praise and endorsement of that person's beliefs, values, and lifestyle. This is the definition of what I am calling the "new tolerance". It is really the abuse of tolerance. Implications of the "new tolerance" This new definition is not merely a change in outlook; it brings very serious implications as to how our society conducts itself and how we as Christians react and relate to it as well as how we react and relate within our own church family. * the first implication is the repression of public discourse. Previously, people would challenge us to prove our position - "You say Jesus is the only way to God, prove it!" Now people challenge us with the right to say what we claim to be the truth. "Jesus is the only way to God, how dare you say that; who do you think you are? You have insulted everyone who holds another view!" The issue is no longer the truth of the message, but the right to proclaim it. The new tolerance has become the exact opposite of the old. Any unpopular message can be labelled "intolerant" and thus is to be repressed. * the second implication is the privatization of conviction. If all beliefs are equally valid, then Christians will face pressure to keep silent because speaking out for Christ will be seen to be intolerant of the beliefs and lifestyles of others. * the third implication is a new wave of religious persecution. Claiming to hold unique truth could be judged as a "hate crime" and face unpopularity, and even persecution (this would also include serious Jews and Muslims and all who claim divine revelation). This is evident in the antagonism towards Christianity in particular in many of the university classrooms of our nation. A good example of costly intimidation was the dispute a few years ago with Trinity Western University and teacher graduate certification which went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada that I will mention in a few moments. Another example is the recent ruling compelling Manitoba justices of the peace to "marry" same-sex couples forcing many to resign out of conscience. * a fourth implication is a new inner turmoil for Christians. At the General Synod in 2001, after a presentation on the pastoral care of those involved in the current debate over homosexual practice, (which presentation I found very coercive and intolerant of conservative concerns, by the way), one delegate was in tears. As she wept, she said to me, "I want to love everyone and be compassionate, but I don't agree with the practice, yet I feel I am not allowed to speak out." Exposing the Untruth In addressing the subtle but effective challenge to our faith and practice brought by the "new tolerance", we need to unmask the faulty thinking behind its assumptions. One of the positions of the new tolerance is that we Christians do not practice what we preach - by disagreeing with a person's lifestyle or views, we are told that we are not accepting the person, not loving them as Jesus said we should. This argument has carried a lot of weight with Christians - it sounds so plausible. But all we have to do is think for a minute. When the child in my care runs out into the road, I tell him or her off. I disagree with the child, not because I dislike him or her, but because I love them - I am concerned their activity will lead to their harm. Others will say, "Because you hold a certain position, you are not able to sympathise or care for that person - you will be intolerant towards them." This was the case in the dispute a few years ago between the British Columbia Institute of Teachers and the Christian university, Trinity Western. The BCIT would not recognize the graduates from TWU as qualified to teach because it said the university's requirement that all members of the university abstain from sexual intercourse before marriage or homosexual activity would render the teachers they graduate incapable of being able to be sympathetic or caring towards homosexual students in their future care. Now I am against adultery and murder and theft - in fact, every time we read the Ten Commandments in Lent and Advent, I ask God to "incline my heart to keep this law" and thus agree that abstaining from these things is good. Does that make me incapable of ministering to a person who comes to see me in my office caught in the trap of adultery or the man I visit in prison serving a sentence for murder or theft? Just because I disagree with a particular belief or lifestyle does not render me incapable of caring for or loving the person with whom I disagree. Finally, Jesus himself set us the perfect example of accepting someone without agreeing with their lifestyle. In the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:2-11), the religious people challenged Jesus to condemn the woman because of her behaviour. Jesus did not condemn the woman - "Neither do I condemn you" - but then he added - "Go and sin no more". His acceptance of the woman did not preclude him disagreeing with her lifestyle and telling her so. In fact, as I hope to show in a few moments, love demanded it. Acceptance of a person does not necessarily mean agreement with their views or lifestyle or lack of sympathy or compassion for them. Our Response What, then should be our response in this new climate of what is really "anti-tolerance"? How do we act and speak? * hold together truth and love: before giving some practical steps, I want to mention what should be the guiding principle behind all we do or say. In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul says, "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching...Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ" (Ephesians 4:14-15). The key is to "speak the truth in love". I will use the helpful analogy that I have used before in explaining what this means. (In my hand I have) (Take) ordinary table salt - it is composed of the elements of sodium and chlorine. Taken alone, they are deadly but together, they are life-giving. It is the same with truth and love; "Truth" held alone leads to legalism with actions and relationships based solely on rules and regulations; "Love" held alone leads to permissiveness and sentimentality with actions and relationships based solely on feelings. We need to hold both together. The fact is, love is not love without truth and truth is not truth without love. If we are to follow Christ, it is the two together, love and truth, which must characterize our relationships. With this principle in mind, Josh McDowell gives the following two paths to take simultaneously: humbly pursue truth and aggressively practice love: * humbly pursue truth: Jesus said, "The truth will set you free" (John 8:32). We are to counter the new doctrine of tolerance by showing it up for what it is - intolerant! Embrace all people but not all beliefs. Listen and learn from all people without necessarily agreeing with them. Speak out courageously for truth even if scorned. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15) * aggressively practice love: the new tolerance simply avoids offending someone; love actively seeks to promote the other's good. * The new tolerance says, "You must approve of what I do." Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will love you, even when your behaviour offends me." * The new tolerance says, "You must agree with me." Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will tell you the truth because I am convinced the truth will set you free." * The new tolerance says, "You must allow me to have my way." Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will plead with you to follow the right way, because I believe you are worth the risk." * The new tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. * The new tolerance glorifies division; love seeks unity. * The new tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything. Pursuing truth and practicing love: this is the way we will avoid abusing tolerance. --The Rev. Dr. Brett Cane is thye Rector of St. Aidan's Church Winnipeg, MB This article was taken from the Anglican Essentials Canada Website ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:01:15 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: As Eye See It: Rome and the TAC - by John Hepworth As Eye See It: Rome and the TAC - by John Hepworth http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3450 Rome and the TAC by John Hepworth The Primate of the TAC, Archbishop John Hepworth, has released the following two statements, in the face of on-going media speculation about the desire of the Traditional Anglican Communion to fulfil, at least within its own community, the goal for Unity between Anglicanism and the Holy See established by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsay, "united but not absorbed". The Primate is concerned at reactions from within the Anglican world showing great hostility to a position that was - until the ordination of women - the agreed Anglican position. He is also concerned that some within the Roman Catholic Church are reacting adversely to media speculation. The TAC, as the largest of the "Continuing" Anglican Churches, has achieved a remarkable degree of synodical unity and support for the unanimous stand of its bishops concerning the Holy See. The Primate is aware that the stand of the TAC - an Anglican Church actually seeking full communion with the See of Peter because it believes that such unity is of the essence of the Church - is controversial and newsworthy. He also understands that the full understanding and consent of the clergy and people of the TAC cannot be sought and received without some publicity and media interest. The Primate hopes that the following mature assessments from Bishop Wilkinson and himself will serve as authentic statements for all those watching this process at the beginning of 2006. From the desk (and computer) of Bishop Peter Wilkinson, OSG Dear Brethren: Over the course of this year many of you have asked for information on the progress of our talks with Rome. I have told you what I know. So, as a further help to all of us, I have asked the Primate for a letter that would bring us up to date. It follows my introductory comments. INTRODUCTION After about 450 years of attempts of varying seriousness, Anglicans and Roman Catholics really began talking to one another after the joint decision by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, expressed in a Common Declaration during their meeting in Rome in March 1966 --39 years ago. Within a year the Commission they established had produced a report that proclaimed "penitence for the past, thankfulness for the graces of the present, urgency and resolve for a future in which our common aim would be the restoration of full organic unity." In April 1977 Archbishop Ramsey's successor in the See of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, and Pope Paul VI, made a further Common Declaration declaring their desire for "the restoration of complete communion in faith and sacramental life." In the same year, The Affirmation of St Louis, so deeply embedded in our ACCC Constitution and the Concordat, also declared "our intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who 'worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,' and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles." This should not be news to anyone in the ACCC. Since those days a lot of water has flowed down the Thames and the Tiber, and a big logjam -- the purported ordination of women to the priesthood. Rome reacted immediately with both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II stating in letters to the Archbishop(s) of the day that this act would create a stumbling block to unity. Anglican Synods paid no heed either to the pleas of their own constituency, to Roman Catholics, or to the Orthodox Churches of the East some of whose Synods had declared Anglican Orders valid (Constantinople, Jerusalem and Cyprus). The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission [ARCIC] talks continued and some good progress was made to which Rome did not react. With the advent of the real possibility of the purported consecration of woman to the Episcopate in England, a Roman Catholic Bishops' response to the Rochester Report (which recommends the Church of England proceed to consecrate women) has stated that, "if the Church of England consecrates women bishops its relations with Roman Catholicism could suffer 'irreparable damage' and warns that women bishops would 'radically' impair relations between the two Churches. They also said that the reform was at odds with the ecumenical steps taken between the two Churches. The source of this statement goes on to comment that "the long-hoped for reunion between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism remains the pipe dream of a few ecumenical specialists." Sad to say, in the Canterbury Communion the situation is still deteriorating. A report says that Archbishop Ellison Pogo told over 100 delegates to the 11th General Synod of the Church of Melanesia, that the Anglican Church in the Central Pacific should permit the ordination of women to the priesthood. Archbishop Pogo urged the recusants [Anglo-Catholics] to rethink their stance. Another report has it that "the Anglican Churches of the Global South are as divided over the issue of women's orders as is the Church of England. Evangelical provinces such as Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda ordain women -- while Nigeria and Southeast Asia do not. Anglo-Catholic Provinces are equally divided with Central Africa opposed and the West Indies in favour of ordaining women. "The leader of the Ugandan Church, Archbishop Henry Orombi argued that women priests were not a universal panacea for the church's ills and would not work in some places he cautioned, but he believed this was not an issue that should divide the Church." Dissident groups that have left the ACC [note - ed: Anglican Church of Canada] and PECUSA and are bound up with these Provinces and Dioceses, already have some women in major orders. In light of such a massive defection from Anglican (and therefore Catholic) faith and practice [see the Preface to the Ordinal and the Solemn Declaration in our BCP, which declare that we have no Ministry of our own but only that of Christ's Holy Catholic Church], who is there for Rome to talk to -- only the TAC, and those few remaining faithful dioceses and provinces of the Canterbury Communion? It is a dialogue Anglicans began in good faith 39 years ago, and it is a dialogue that we are bound to continue, "that", as our Lord Jesus Christ said, "they may be one, even as We are one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me and hast loved them even as Thou hast loved Me [St John 17:22b, 23]; who livest and reignest with the same Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever. Amen. +Peter Wilkinson, OSG Statement from Archbishop John Hepworth: The Primate Responds to Reports and Speculation about the TAC and Rome. It is twelve years since Archbishop Falk led a little group to Rome to explore the possibility of a closer communion with the Holy See, in continuation of the ARCIC agreement between Archbishop Ramsey and Pope Paul VI. Since then, every meeting of the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (and we have managed to meet every two years) has endorsed the principle of the TAC seeking to be "an Anglican Church in communion with the Holy See". Different parts of the TAC have different ways of reporting the doings of the College of Bishops, and there are still some differences in the way that the TAC Concordat (the ruling document that creates the "communion" between TAC bishops) is embedded in the Constitutional arrangements of our member churches, so some seem to know more about what happens in the TAC than others. Some churches have managed frequent visits by the Primate to brief synods and meetings of clergy and laity, others have managed rather less. So the awareness of what is happening with the "Roman question" varies around the TAC. At this time, almost every National Synod has passed some form of resolution accepting the concept of "an Anglican Church in communion with the Holy See", at least in principle. Some have passed very detailed and enthusiastic resolutions, and embarked on detailed activities with local Roman Catholic communities. Why are we doing this? Our communion with the Anglican Communion in most parts of the world was shattered by the ordination of women to Holy Orders. In this ultimate of schismatic acts, the Anglican Communion betrayed its claim to share a common Apostolic Ministry with the churches of East and West, which had undergirded its claims to be authentically catholic since the Reformation. In the same step, the great doctrines of Creation, Incarnation and Redemption are denied. The sacramental life of the Church, by which Jesus brings the saving grace of redemption to each of us, becomes an object of suspicion and uncertainty. Placing a woman priest in a diocese is always "communion breaking", since it makes the very act of communion impossible. At the same time, the ordination of women fractured one of the most solemn agreements ever made by an Archbishop of Canterbury. Michael Ramsey, when he signed the agreement to create "full and organic communion" with the Holy See, acted upon the urging of the Lambeth Fathers since the "Bell Resolutions" of the Lambeth Conference just before the Second World War, and the enthusiasm of the earliest Conferences for discovering a basis of unity with Rome. And the Pope, in agreeing to this unity that he described as "united but not absorbed", determined to end five centuries of often-bitter division. The Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission was created to achieve this unity. It was clearly understood that, if Anglicans ordained women to Holy Order, the unity would become almost impossible. So each Anglican Province that voted for women priests, voted to end the possibility of unity. The TAC has simply determined to continue the process, since the impediment does not exist within our Communion. And there is another reason. Having had our communion with the Anglican Communion shattered, we cannot remain "a church on the loose". To hold the catholic faith requires that faith be exercised in communion. Bishops cannot exist cut off from the mainstream of the church's life. Unity is not an option. Jesus commanded it. Will we be absorbed by Rome? Roman Catholics (including a significant number of former Anglican clergy and laity) have urged us to value our Anglican heritage. One author has written movingly that the TAC seeks "to achieve communion (with the Holy See) while maintaining those revered traditions of spirituality, liturgy, discipline and theology that constitute the centuries old heritage of Anglican communities throughout the world". We seek to be "Anglican Catholics". That is, to value our Anglicanism while being visibly united to the "whole church catholic" of which our formularies have always spoken. What stage have we reached? There have been no secrets up until now, and there will be none in the future. The TAC is following a traditional Anglican method of wide consultation, synodical decision-making and deep involvement of clergy and laity. At Easter this year, I published for the whole TAC a Pastoral Letter on Unity, which set out for publication the point we had reached and pathways for the future. As with all-important documents of the TAC, the Messenger carried the full text. I am presuming, perhaps rashly in the case of some countries, that the Messenger goes into every TAC home in the world. Certainly, we print enough for that! At the moment, there are two documents in the final stages of preparation. The first is a "Pastoral Plan", prepared by an eminent Roman Catholic layman, which performs the joint functions of "verifying the TAC as a worthy interlocutor with the Roman Catholic Church" and of setting out the "desired levels of recognition of the TAC by Rome both before and after full communion". This document will be delivered to every bishop early in the new year, and will be debated by a full meeting of the College of Bishops, in the presence of clerical and lay representatives of each member church, hopefully in Rome in the first half of next year, but perhaps not until September. The document will then go to the synods of the member churches (even if they must have an extraordinary meeting). If the document wins the approval of the whole Communion, it will be formally presented to the Holy See, and a more formal process will be established. (At the moment, it would be fair to say that wide ranging, multi-level, international contacts between the TAC and Rome have been proceeding for some years, and have intensified in the past year, with a resultant increase in publicity. It is also true to say that a much greater awareness of the TAC still needs to be created.) The second document is a formal proposal from the TAC to the Holy See for the TAC to become an "Anglican Rite Church "sui juris" in communion with the Holy See". The first draft of this document was submitted to the Council for Christian Unity, and its response, with input from other Roman Catholic and Uniate Catholic sources, shaped the present document. It is not proposed to submit this document until the Pastoral Plan is approved by the TAC. The College as a whole has not yet approved the present draft. A further letter is sometimes mentioned. On becoming Primate, I wrote personally to the Council for Christian Unity resuming the conversations that had been conducted by Archbishop Falk. I made the basic claim, sometimes wrongly reported, that "there are no doctrinal or moral matters of such significance that they would prevent unity between this Communion and the Holy See". In all of these documents matters of historic difference are canvassed. But both our own bishops and those with whom we speak emphasise the fact that we seek to create a eucharistic community, in which we can join at the altar of God, and from which all else must flow. Questions of Orders, of Liturgy, of clergy discipline, of the way in which we would experience our relationship with the See of Peter, have all been the object of our, as yet, informal conversations. We have found deep rapport in our conversations, as well as much direct speaking, but nothing is, as yet, official. I close this summary with some words shared with me by a Cardinal who has followed this journey. "We must learn to practice the unity we already share from the action of the Holy Spirit. Only then can we ask for more. And the time will be God's time, if we are truly prepared to place this in God's hands." +John Hepworth Primate P.S. What Prayer Book will be used? The Traditional Anglican Communion uses a number of national versions of the Book of Common Prayer, often incorporating the Usage of the English and Anglican Missals. These forms of Public Worship are authorised by the College of Bishops, and member churches do not act on liturgical forms without the authority of the College. English is only the seventh most-used liturgical language in the TAC, so the various English Prayer Books are not the most significant issue in our Communion, albeit they have local importance. There is no suggestion that we would adopt the Book of Divine Worship. I have personally indicated to the Holy See that we are deeply moved -- and reassured -- that Rome has authorised any Anglican Liturgy at all. A vital issue for us to discuss is whether we want to attempt a Prayer Book for the TAC at some stage in the future, and then translate it into each of our languages. Bishop Mercer has written with some authority on this proposal. Since it would take the entire annual budget of the TAC for a number of years, it is not on my immediate list of things to do. +JH --Archbishop John Hepworth is head of the Traditional Anglican Communion. He is based in Australia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:03:05 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: Chaplain Fights Politically Correct Pentagon - by Mike McManus Chaplain Fights Politically Correct Pentagon - by Mike McManus http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3457 Ethics & Religion Chaplain Fights Politically Correct Pentagon by Michael J. McManus "Why would the U.S. Navy fire a chaplain, evict him and his family from military housing leaving him with no retirement," asked my son, Adam, in a column. Adam offered four multiple choices: A. He had an extra-marital affair with a female officer B. He posed nude in Playgirl Magazine C. He disobeyed direct orders to go to Iraq because of his pacifist convictions D. He prayed in the name of Jesus, quoted John 3:3 and John 3:36 during an optional memorial service in The Naval Base chapel, declined to support mandatory attendance quotas at a pro-homosexual church, and requested Kosher meals to feed a hungry Orthodox Jewish sailor. "Sadly, the correct answer is letter D. Welcome to the politically correct insanity of today's military...Unbelievably, Admirals from the Pentagon have stripped 37-year-old Naval Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of his uniform and forbidden him to pray in the name of Jesus in public unless he is wearing civilian clothes," Adam wrote. This is a direct violation of the law dating back to 1860 (Title 10 U.S. Code Section 6031) which states: "An officer in the Chaplain Corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member." On December 20th, Klingenschmitt held a press conference in front of the White House, asking President Bush to issue an Executive Order allowing military chaplains to pray according to their individual faith traditions, as the law permits. He also started fasting until the President responds. As I write, he has not eaten for 15 days. What would drive a man to such an extreme position? His faith. Klingenschmitt graduated from the Air Force Academy and rose to the rank of Captain. He attended seminary to become a chaplain, but the only openings were in the Navy. He switched services, accepting a lower rank, a pay cut and was assigned to the USS Anzio. His faith conflicted with the Navy on four issues. First, he led a memorial service for a deceased sailor who died in a motorcycle accident, shortly after he came to faith as a result of hearing Klingenschmitt preach. He cited the same Scriptural references in the funeral service that he preached including John 3:3: "Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." Also John 3:36: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Captain James Carr, his Commanding Officer of the Anzio, attended. Carr told him the sermon should honor the faith of those attending the service, not the faith of the deceased. "Preaching a negative or exclusive message will eventually get you fired," Carr informed Klingenshmitt. "Do you really have to preach all that 'born again' stuff in your sermons?" The chaplain was forced to attend mandatory counseling with Capt. Chaplain Steve Gragg who said, "You're not supposed to preach John 3:36 when unbelievers are present because you might offend them. We must preach as institutional-pluralistic ministers; we're not really here to represent our denominations." Klingenschmitt disagreed, citing the law above, saying, "I don't wear the "P" of Pluralism on my collar, I wear the cross of Jesus Christ." His second offense was that he ended his prayers "in the name of Jesus." At Chaplain School he was taught to only mention God. He compromised by saying, "We pray to you, Almighty God and I pray in Jesus name. Amen." Klingenschmitt was even reprimanded for helping an Orthodox Jewish sailor have Kosher meals aboard the Anzio. Captain Carr objected and asked the sailor to meet with a Rabbi chaplain to see if Kosher meals were necessary. The Rabbi agreed with the sailor, citing Navy regulations accommodating religious dietary requirements. The sailor got only one Kosher meal a day and lost 17 pounds. Finally, Klingenschmitt objected to forcing scores of on-duty sailors to attend a televised service in a church that ordains gay clergy. As a Evangelical Episcopalian, he suggested that sailors be given the option of attending an optional evangelical service. That was denied. When few sailors signed up for the televised United Church of Christ service, senior chaplains ordered him to send a quota of sailors to pretend they were worshiping. Klingenschmitt objected to "government-mandated church quotas to enforce their own religion on non-volunteering sailors." His fast and White House press conference moved the Navy to reinstate him as a chaplain. But Bush has not issued an Executive Order allowing chaplains the freedom to practice the faith of their heritage. So his fast continues. Copyright 2006 Michael J. McManus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:04:56 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: Is Terrorism "religion" news? - by Terry Mattingly Is Terrorism "religion" news? - by Terry Mattingly http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3433 Is Terrorism "religion" news? By Terry Mattingly The suicide bomber struck at a sandwich stand in the busy outdoor market of the Israeli coastal city called Hadera, killing five people and wounding dozens more. Islamic Jihad claimed credit for the blast, which came a month after Israel's September exit from Gaza. Israeli leaders quickly released a statement noting that this attack followed remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map." The bomber was a Palestinian. News reports did not attempt to pin ethnic or religious labels on the victims. Are events such as this one "religion" news? This question matters because, week after week, journalists struggle to describe conflicts of this kind between the extremists many now call Islamists and other believers -- Jews, Christians, moderate Muslims, skeptics and others. These events are haunted by religion, yet it is faith mixed with politics, history, ethnicity, economics, blood feuds and many other factors. I am not sure it would help readers if the press called these events "religion" news. If might stir even hotter emotions. Do we need to know the religious identity of every victim or have we reached the point where journalists can assume that we know? When are rioting thugs merely rioting thugs? When are police just police? Nevertheless, it's hard not to ask these kinds of questions when reading the list of the Religion Newswriters Association's top 10 news events of 2005. The overwhelming choices for the top two stories were the final decline and death of Pope John Paul II -- who mourners hailed as "John Paul the Great" -- and the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The 100 religion-beat professionals who took part also selected John Paul II as religion newsmaker of the year, with 68 percent of the vote. The new pope placed second, with 21 percent. News at the Vatican will always make headlines. The rest of the 2005 list included other familiar topics, from debates about evolution to euthanasia, from battles over homosexuality to unresolved church-state tensions among the justices -- current and future -- at the U.S. Supreme Court. But the top 10 included no events linked to terrorism, Iraq, Israel and the clash of cultures that has dominated the news in recent years. This is news about religion, but is it "religion" news? According to historian Martin Marty, America's best-known commentator on religion, it's time for journalists to ask a more disturbing question: "In the wake of Sept. 11, is there any news today that IS NOT religion news?" Here's the rest of the RNA list of the top 10 religion stories: (1) The world mourns the death of Pope John Paul II after his historic reign of 26-plus years. His courage in the face of death inspires many. Admirers call for his canonization and major networks broadcast mini-series about this life. (2) The veteran Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a top aide to John Paul II, is elected by the cardinals to succeed him as Benedict XVI. Catholic progressives are appalled, while other Vatican insiders watch for signs of what his papacy will bring. (3) While demonstrators mourn, Terri Schiavo dies in a Florida nursing home after her feeding tube is removed. Politicians, clergy and family members debate her right to live or die. (4) Churches and faith-based agencies respond to Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in Southeast Asia and a devastating earthquake in Pakistan. Many clergy ask: What role did God play in these disasters? (5) Disputes about homosexuality continue to split the global Anglican Communion, as well as cause tensions among Evangelical Lutherans, United Methodists and, in a dispute that finally went public, the American Baptists. (6) Advocates of "intelligent design" continue to push for the right to question Darwinism in public schools, but suffer stinging defeats in Pennsylvania. (7) U.S. Supreme Court approves posting of Ten Commandments outside the Texas state capitol and disapproves their posting inside Kentucky courthouses -- both by 5-4 votes. A federal judge reinstates a ban on "under God" in Pledge of Allegiance in three California school districts. (8) Voices on the religious right and left question President Bush's three nominees to the Supreme Court, with some evangelicals supporting and some opposing born-again candidate Harriet Miers. (9) Vatican releases long-awaited document on gay seminarians, barring from ordination those who are actively homosexual, have "deeply rooted" gay tendencies or oppose the church's teachings on the subject. (10) Billy Graham holds a final evangelistic campaign in New York City. --Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:07:47 -0500 From: "David W. Virtue" Subject: Anglo-Catholic Reader Responds to Article: Catholic, Protestant Divide Anglo-Catholic Reader Responds to Article: Catholic, Protestant Divide http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3461 By Stevens Heckscher On 19 December, 2005, there appeared in Virtue Online an article by Paul Taylor, LL.M., entitled "Catholic, Protestant Divide". This article is filled with factual errors. David Virtue has kindly given me permission to write a rejoinder. It is no kindness to his readers, nor to Mr. Taylor himself, to permit the latter's article to go uncorrected. Hence the following. [Quotations from Taylor are in boldface; my responses are in ordinary face.] After a brief introduction, the article begins: Fifty years ago Anglo-Catholics used to say that the Articles of Religion better known as the 39 Articles were kept in the prayerbook because of historical reasons and had no meaning. Today they are ignored and as a matter of fact Anglo-Catholic books do not contain the Articles. Interestingly enough The Protestant Episcopal church in America, (P)ECUSA, dropped the articles in 2,000 because they were too religious. So how do these Articles of Religion fit into the current picture. [Punctuation and capitals as in the original.] This is too sweeping a generalization. Anglo-Catholics had many objections to the Thirty-nine Articles, but were not unanimous or uniform in their rejection of them. The statement that "ECUSA dropped the articles ... because they were too religious" is startling and needs justification. From the religious point of view they are protestant. A review of the Articles show that there are huge differences between Catholics and Anglicans. Again, this is too sweeping a generalization. Gallons of scholarly ink have been expended over the question of how "Catholic" or "Protestant" the articles are, and for Taylor to make such a glib statement about this highly charged issue, is unjustifiable. [T]here were originally 42 Articles but the Anabaptists were no longer a threat and so Crammer's Articles of Religion were reduced to 39 Articles. From the moment when Elizabeth I ascended the throne, the Anglican formularies began, very slowly at first, to be revised from their Protestant, probably Calvinist/Zwinglian, low-water mark as of the reign of the boy King Edward, upward in a more moderate, eirenical, even Catholic, direction. Elizabeth wanted peace and inclusiveness, even of Catholics, to the greatest extent possible. On her own initiative, she revised in the direction of sacramental realism the words of administration of the Sacrament. Article XXVIII was revised at the urging of one Bishop Guest, to say inter alia that, "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" [emphasis mine]. Very few Anglo-Catholics could quarrel with that implied sacramental objectivity and denial of crass materialism. Finally (by way of examples), early in Elizabeth's reign the Convocations legislated that doctrines preached be in accordance with the teachings of the ancient Catholic Bishops and Fathers (though this canon was not ratified by Parliament it did express the mind of the Convocations at that time). The reasons for the above-mentioned withdrawal of three of Cranmer's original forty-two articles need greater elucidation. Morning Prayer became the main service of the English church. This Catholic service was used to prepare people to receive communion. High churchmen and Anglo-Catholics have disowned the service because it is too protestant. This bit is self-contradictory and erroneous. While it is true that Morning Prayer became the normal Sunday morning service in the Church of England for many years, the reasons for this may lie in the insistence upon frequent communions that failed to move the medievally-grounded layfolk. In an attempt to change the Eucharist from a private communion devotion of the priest to a communal celebration, it was legislated that Communion could only be celebrated after the priest had assurances from a specified minimum number of persons that they would receive the Sacrament. Set in their medieval habit of receiving Communion only very infrequently, the people did not respond, and celebration of Holy Communion became rare. That is at least a part of the reason for the ascendancy of Morning Prayer. I have never heard of any High Churchman or Anglo-Catholic denouncing Morning Prayer as too Protestant. Rather, Morning and Evening Prayer are Offices, not Eucharistic liturgies, and in my Anglo-Catholic parish they are used in that way, not as a substitute for the Eucharist, but as a parallel liturgical observance, as mandated by ancient Catholic practice. All Anglicans urgently need this re-emphasis on the importance of the Divine Office. Dyed in the wool protestants believe in Sola Fide, by faith alone, is one saved [sic]. While hedging on a few points Sola fides [sic] is the thrust of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Catholic theology differs markedly. Catholics believe in salvation through the Catholic church.... Here we have the faith/works controversy, which indeed is at the heart of the Reformation controversies. This question is historically and theologically so complex, and the more so in view of recent Roman Catholic - Lutheran rapprochements on the matter, that it needs far more elucidation than Taylor gives it, or that space here will permit. It is just plain wrong to say that Catholic theology believes in salvation through the Catholic Church. Like classical Protestants, Catholics believe in the Atonement. The Church is a vessel for Grace, not the source of it, and not the only such vessel. Finally, aren't we talking here about the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, of which the 1662 Book is a minor revision? The controversy over whether, according to that Book, the Sacraments effectually convey Grace, rather than celebrate the fact that Grace is already present, has been long and deep. It encapsulates a huge difference in world view between Catholics and most Protestants. Taylor cannot justifiably dismiss this whole matter with his sentence about the thrust of the Book of Common Prayer. (My own opinion concerning the 1559 and 1662 Books is that, here again, in an attempt to maintain peace in the Realm and in the Church, they more or less deliberately take a middle ground, perhaps in what in later times would be regarded as a typical Anglican "fudge".) ...[It is Catholic teaching that] [e]ach time a mass is celebrated Christ is re sacrificed. I'm sorry. This is just plain wrong. This is not authentic Catholic belief, Roman or Anglican. I refer Taylor to the extensive twentieth-century literature on this point. For brevity's sake I refrain (albeit with difficulty) in treating the remainder of this almost entirely erroneous paragraph, except for the following: The Catholic concept of relics holding magical power is not mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. No Catholic or Protestant theologian believes in the use of magic by Christians. Popular medieval misconceptions and malpractices do not constitute legitimate doctrine. Catholics deny that the blood of Christ alone cleanses us from all sin. [Where does Taylor find such a denial, pray tell?] Catholics affirm that our good works merit part of our justification. The Articles of Religion strongly disagree and declare We are righteous only through Christ. Christ did it all. There is no justification by man. Our Good Works do not save us. We should do good if we have been saved but the works in and of themselves are not sufficient. [Doesn't Taylor here mean efficacious? No one has claimed that works are sufficient!] I personally explain grace to bible [sic] students by telling them that by my own efforts I can only earn a room on the cooler side. It is the amazing grace of God that saves a wretch like me. Sola Gratia, God's grace alone [sic] are we saved! Concerning this almost entirely erroneous paragraph, I refer Taylor to the Pelagian controversy. That "our good works do not save us" was a settled matter in the early Church at least since the condemnation of Pelagianism, and in my opinion finds decisive support in Scripture and in the writings of the Saints. Again, uninformed popular medieval opinion and practices to the contrary do not constitute Catholic theology. Now, Taylor is saying, sola gratia, where before it was sola fide. Which is it? There is an enormous deposit of deep theology behind this apparent distinction. The Reformers dropped the term mass in favor of the Liturgy of the Lord's Supper and the service changed to stress the concept of Sola Fides. This also downplayed the sacramental aspect of the mass and the priesthood. The resulting 1549 prayerbook (later adopted by pecusa) moves to the protestant view. The reformers from the continent were in England at the time [sic] and felt that Bp. [sic] Crammer [sic] did not go far enough. The result was the 1552 prayerbook which is frightfully protestant. This book was mercifully suppressed by good Queen Mary, but later the communion service appeared intact in the 1662 prayerbook. Morning prayer did go through a revision but not the liturgy of the Lords Supper. (Holy Communion) This paragraph, along with its syntactical errors, is too replete with factual errors to permit full treatment by me if I am to stay within the limits assigned me. Just for laughs, I point out that Taylor has his dates all wrong. Doesn't he (or does he) mean the 1559 Book, not the 1549 Book (neither of which was adopted by PECUSA)? What does he mean by, "later the communion service appeared intact in the 1662 prayerbook"? That amuses me: where in the world was the Communion Service hiding between 1552 and 1662? And, by the way, "good Queen Mary" is more widely known as "Bloody Mary". This group of examples is more than enough to demonstrate the kind of errors that Taylor repeatedly commits. To spare the reader further agonies, I'll end this analysis here, and simply reproduce in boldface a few of the many erroneous or misleading statements Taylor makes about Anglo-Catholicism. My occasional comments are in brackets. The Oxford Movement burst on the scene in 1820. [The correct date is generally considered to be 1833, with the preaching by John Keble of a sermon in the University Church at Oxford.] ...This effort to bring the spirit of God back to the C of E failed [On what does Taylor base this judgment?], but did have some interesting consequences. The Oxford revolt gave birth to the Tractarian movement to discuss the great theological issues ...The Tractarians were shut down [sic] by the C of E [sic] after Tract 90. Anglo-Catholics are a tiny and eclectic assortment of characters. Like the ancient Pharasees [sic] there are many types of Anglo-Catholics, and like the ancient Pharasees [sic] only one group is religious ....The choir offices of Morning and Evening prayer, even though they are catholic services, were dropped because they were too protestant. [Here Taylor repeats his contradiction concerning Morning and Evening Prayer, and then continues:] It was the view of the reformers that it is safer for the soul to be exposed to the entire Bible. These Choir offices were designed to help people get ready to receive the blessed sacrament. Anglo Catholics disagree. The result is that if one is high church or Anglo-Catholic you only get 15% of the New Testament. Taylor concludes with a disorganized discussion of the prospects and pitfalls in the quest for unity with Rome. He includes a reference to the possible role of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and resurrects the issue of the 39 Articles. I cannot determine what Taylor's real point is, except that he has given us a disorganized discussion of some of the points that historically have divided Catholics and Protestants, and that he seems to be obsessed with the Articles, and with Anglo-Catholicism. To try to end this negative review on a positive note and to restore some perspective, I conclude with two quotations from authors whom I highly respect: Concerning the contemporary significance of the 39 Articles, The Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne, an Anglican priest and theoretical physicist, wrote, in my opinion wisely: "Anglicanism has never had ... a detailed , explicit confessional basis such as that provided for Roman Catholics by the teaching of the magisterium, for Lutherans by the Augsburg Confession, and for Scottish Presbyterians by the Westminster Confession. The Thirty-Nine Articles are too unsystematic to play that role and today they are recognized as being very timebound in many of the concerns that they address." 1 I heartily agree. Let's allow the Articles to rest in peace, serving merely to settle historical questions, for we have come a long distance from the controversies that they address, and we are today seeking unity upon a different foundation. Finally, lest Taylor leave us with the impression that the Anglo-Catholic Movement was a failure, let me quote what Evelyn Underhill wrote in her book Worship, when that movement was at its height: "The appearance among us of heroic souls, the many decisive vocations to poverty, chastity, and obedience - and also the widespread desire for a revival of the life of prayer, and uneasy realization of its necessity, which has now covered England with a network of retreat houses, and brings eager pupils to all who offer instruction on the inner life - all this, I am sure, is very closely connected with the restoration of the forgotten ideal of Christian asceticism in its true sense, which we owe ultimately to the Tractarians." 2 I propose that, for those who are minded to further the cause of Christian unity from the Anglican side, an essential project would be to probe for the real reasons for the catastrophic decline that Anglo-Catholicism has suffered in the past seventy-five years, from its position of great influence within and beyond the Anglican Communion, when it nourished such saints and scholars as Arthur Michael Ramsey, Charles Williams, C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, Frank Weston, Dorothy Kerin, and Evelyn Underhill [to name only a few]. I suggest that no simplistic answer to that question will suffice. 1. Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality, p. 125. Yale University Press, 2004. 2. Quoted by Margaret Cropper in Evelyn Underhill: With a Memoir of Lucy Menzies by Lumsden Barkway, pp. 176 - 177. Longmans, Green and Co., 1958. ---Stevens Heckscher, a Benedictine Oblate, holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard, and taught mathematics for twenty years at Swarthmore College. For the last twenty-five years he has been doing mathematical ecology of plant communities for the Natural Lands Trust in the Delaware Valley. He exercises a ministry of spiritual direction at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA. Dr. Heckscher has also contributed the Good Shepherd Manifesto, and a rejoinder to Dr. Paul Zahl in previous digests. ------------------------------ End of VIRTUEONLINE Digest - 28 Dec 2005 to 4 Jan 2006 (#2006-1) ****************************************************************